Many of us have pointed out that feminists will avoid and even censor any discussion of rape when it is not committed by white men. The famous example is in Rotherham UK where 1400 children were raped by Muslim gangs, and groomed in prostitution as young as 8 years of age. The right wing were not able to stop it for over a decade as they were labelled racist and islamophobic by the left and feminists. The police and a liberal local government actively covered it up and allowed it; in many cases they said the children were asking for it, essentially. An example of a feminist trying to cover up what had happened, even after the story had become official: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7JmVwMNq4c

However the default subreddits are not letting this hate speech be told. worldnews has banned it as local news, although it is front page news all across Europe many right wing papers, the number 2 story on BBC, and reported widely in America now. A moderator did however give somebody the real reason: https://i.imgur.com/21U1AIU.png .

Worst of all is that the 2XChromosomes subreddit has deleted all threads talking about the mass sexual assaults and rape in Cologne on that evening. The default sub for females is actively covering up mass sexual assault!

The silence is deafening. Leftist/Feminists enable rape by attempting to cover up assaults. They choose to virtue signal or fight for agendas that make themselves feel good, even when it results in more rapes for other women. It is the ultimate act of selfishness and hypocrisy.

I know we aren't really activists here, but we can do good by pointing out the progressivism pecking order to women that are close to us: 'oppressed' rapists come before female victims.

Worst of all is that the 2XChromosomes subreddit has deleted all threads talking about the mass sexual assaults and rape in Cologne on that evening. The default sub for females is actively covering up mass sexual assault!

Rest assured we won't be censoring discussion of this on our subreddit.

EDIT: Assumedly paid shills or muslims reported the thread that came up before on this subject until the automod canned it. We've hard-authorised this one, so file as many reports as you like and it won't go anywhere.

In fact, if you want to hide the truth because it offends you, if you're going to emotionally align with rapists because you can't BEAR to have anything negative said about about "your people," feel free to unsubscribe from this subreddit. The close-minded and easily offended are not welcome here, we haven't got time for your bullshit sensibilities here.

I'd bet good money its paid shills. The refugee crisis into europe has been incredibly heavily PR managed. There is no way muslim users would be floating around every sub on reddit and working this particular story so heavily it does not slip through their net anywhere. Only an organised, well resourced, pre-emptive approach could do that.

There are multiple powerful groups that want high levels of muslim refugees in Europe. People keep blaming feminist/muslims/lefties. They're just unorganised canon fodder. They're mostly usless without professional organisation (and money) behind the scenes

There are multiple powerful groups that want high levels of muslim refugees in Europe. People keep blaming feminist/muslims/lefties. They're just unorganised canon fodder. They're mostly usless without professional organisation (and money) behind the scenes.

a) When the Turkish ecenomy picked up their large pool of German/Turk low cost labour started shrinking as German Turks moved to Turkey. They need an alternative to keep wages down. A million or Syrian refugees who don't even have citizenship wourd be great.

b) They hope to implement more austerity policies which are wildly unpopular in Europe. By dividing the public on the issue of refugees they can play the right and left off against each other and slip austerity through. There is a massive left wing anti-austerity movement in Europe that is increasingly successful. The Left's refugee friendly stance damages it politically if there are lots of refugees

Arab Gulf States:

If Europe gets flooded with refugees then maybe the European governments will try stop it at the nource ie interevene militarily in Syria against Assad. Effectively using Europeans/Westerners to fight as the military of Saudi/Qatar/etc who have shit militaries.

Turkey:

Same as the Gulf states. But also Turkey more directly controls the flow of refugees as many of the camps are un its borders. They ramp up or ramp down the refugee flow to get deals out of Europe

US Defense elites:

Basically the name as the Gulf States. They would love to intervene directly in Syria but can't as they look idiots after Iraq so have no credibility with the rent of the US elite and public . They need European involvement to intervene directly

This is just me, but Mexicans are Catholic( so share a religous identity). A percentage want to come here, keep their heads low, create a family or support a family either here or back home. There are a lot of bad older and young Mexican males that come out here to the US, the U.S.A. legal system is strong enough to correct thier behavior.

They stick to their ethnic enclaves, they know they are unwelcome in this country if they do anything stupid. They know they will go to jail or be deported, and the ones that do crimes, rape, etc. are put in the U.S. prison system(the ultimate nightmare for them because they hate jail more than most Americans, also, they are towards the lower end of the prison Hierarchy).

After a generation or two most Latin-American immigrants go either go down these couple routes.

--If they cant adjust to the American way of life in all its values, they give up and go back to Latin America.

-- The ones that understand American values do their best to assimilate. Assimilating has its downsides, but they are so many upsides its worth it and they see it(ones that dont see it never enter mainstream American society). Ones that can enter mainstream society do, those that can not stick to the ethnic enclaves. There are a lot of unmannered Latinos in this group, but they understand if they do not play by the rules, the hammer will come down.

-- The ones that want to act like themselves in Mexico (savage poor people, except without supervision of a community) in this american lifestyle. They do not pickup the good habits and feel they should be able to live like they did Mexico here in the United States, except in a way they see it as free for all too (Muslim Refugees see Europe as a free for all, touch white women no repercussions, being fed and housed at the same time with no work). In time they go to prison or get deported, a percentage never bear offspring here in the USA. These are the guys that are acting like the Muslim Migrants that do not know they are unwelcome guests for their behavior. I am happy these guys get deported because they ruin it for whatever positive Latinos are out here.

I was one of the people that reported it, but not because I'm part of some kind of conspiracy, I'm actually a (usually lurking, but nevertheless) avid reader of the sub. I just didn't think it added much to the sub in terms of content, as is the case for this thread.

Could you explain what the value of this thread is on the sub, because in my opinion it has not much to do with sexual strategy and everything to do with right wing politics.

Could you explain what the value of this thread is on the sub, because in my opinion it has not much to do with sexual strategy and everything to do with right wing politics.

If I explain the value of this thread on the sub it presupposes it has no value and that its value must be proven, I reject this notion. So I'm not going to explain its value, but rather I'm going to share my opinion.

We discussed Rotherham as well, I know these topics are distasteful, but it doesn't mean they should not be discussed. The community cares about these things and they don't feel they have anywhere else to discuss it, so who are we to stop them? Sorry bro you're not talking about how to get your dick wet on Tinder, so we're going to have to can this one?

As far as I am concerned the failings of feminist-friendly political policy, eg: allow foreign invaders into your borders to rape your women, is about as relevant as any thread that comes up discussing how feminist rape culture hysteria on campus is nonsense. If one wishes to be tenuous, although a macro rather than micro level issue, feminist rape culture hysteria effects your sexual strategy just like ACTUAL rape culture does, which this is.

If we allow people to post threads about how feminist rape culture is bullshit, but then silence threads about ACTUAL RAPE CULTURE because "it's right wing politics that has nothing to do with sexual strategy" we'd be monumental hypocrites.

To be honest, and I've said this before, I think TRP has grown larger in scope than the humbleness of its sidebar description. Should it become a meta problem, I will petition extensively for the support of these threads within TRP (we don't want it to become the main focus, obviously, but I believe they have a place here.)

Hey /u/MachiavellianRed was the similar topic "TwoX Covering Up Actual RAPE Story Unfortunately it Does Not Fit The Progressive Narrative" by /u/Labore_Et_Constantia removed by an autobot, or was it deleted intentionally? Thanks for your tremendous efforts, always..

Yes, I thought so--thank you. Also, this is less of an issue, but every time I say something controversial, my last 20 comments all go south. I don't mind because I could care less about points, but everyone on the red pill should be aware of the power of a brigade. They are here in mass numbers, and they are making intelligent subversions.

Agreed, there are also a few questionable comments that get thumbed uped and discussed which always makes me wonder. They are never overtly bad or wrong, but just not quite "top tier" comments. A lotta shilling nowadays

I wasn't challenging the subject, but rather the content of the threads in terms of adding value, which I thought it lacked.
To me the threads had an air of "Hai gaiz, this happpnd!" vibe to them, which directly contradicts the new Rule Zero and more specifically this line:

&gt; Write anything in here that sets some other goal (moralizing, showing off, political agenda, etc) above that goal? Banned.

Now if you want to change that and you feel you want to interpret the rule differently to have a place to discuss this kind of shit, that's your job and not mine. I wasn't aware of this, however, which is why I reported the thread. Not because we're not talking about how to get your dick wet on Tinder.

Yes, this is hardly political agenda. He hasn't called for closing the borders, has he? He's merely reporting. Under your interpretation, anything that is macro level gender politics related is a political agenda and therefore should not be discussed. This is silly, as we have a men's rights flair, and one could easily argue that men's right is a political agenda.

It is my belief your interpretation of Rule Zero is off, and certainly, us mods do not create rules for people to reinterpret them in a way we did not intend. Quickest way to get banned? Try and weaponize the rules against a mod.

Big difference between reporting something that happened, and a call to action. One is a statement of fact, the other is a political agenda in action - this is a vital distinction.

If the politics are gender related, being a subreddit about sexual strategy, we are obviously going to discuss it. If you want to talk about environmentalism? This isn't the place for that. Again, I shouldn't need to make this distinction, you should already know this.

Naturally, I am benevolent enough to publicly have this discussion up until a point I believe it is no longer of benefit to the community. I could've easily removed your posts and ignored you (is more time efficient), but I think the community can gain benefit from better understanding how I/we operate.

you feel you want to interpret the rule differently to have a place to discuss this kind of shit

This is not about my feelings, and you are on precarious ground for testing my tolerance by implying it is. Don't think I don't see the subtle neg there, that's in poor taste.

I know young guys especially get a kick out of testing/questioning/holding to account anyone they perceive as an authority (even strangers on the internet who have built a community they benefit from), and then go cry NAZI and censorship when they get banned for agitating a mod. This is a thankless job, and those such as yourself who are perhaps well-meant or perhaps not (we can't tell, so we have to assume concern trolling most of the time) only make it harder.

We've had plenty of guys do this before, we're still here running one of the most successful men's communities on the internet, they're on a new Reddit account lying low because even though they're juvenile enough to try and AMOG the mods that built and maintained this place, they would hate to lose access to that same space the people they disrespect maintain.

Rest assured, along with the other moderators, I have helped to benevolently guide this community for the best part of two years, a community you would not have the pleasure of utilising were it not for the efforts of my colleagues and I. Sure I sound a dick saying that, but this is the reality.

You are right about one thing though:

that's your job and not mine.

Exactly.

A little more appreciation and a little less passive aggression would go a long way, thanks.

Better yet if you ask us in mod mail rather than in public like this, we're more likely to assume you're genuine rather than a troll who wants to seem edgy for taking on a mod. Benevolent dictatorship is how we run this place, we've said it before, it's not a democracy. I will discuss this no further with you.

Funny. my other account was banned for making a perfectly salient argument. I'm not trying to derail the discussion or anything, just pointing out that not even you, oh glorious redpill mods, are so virtuous as to be trusted with absolute power. Thank you for doing the right thing on this subject however.

This is a gold mine for them especially WoC there is a movement that wants white women to mate and have darker babies ending white oppression. So if they get pregnant through rape better yet, feminists goals are to keep women oppressed they are a no end movement

This gave me goosebumps. Redpill has been so hard for me to swallow and I think I will continue to swallow it for a lifetime, but you guys are my people...I feel like this is war for good and evil..I really do.

As abhorrent as rape is, I don't see why we should care about this as a community. If this had been a bunch of angry Muslims cutting the foreskins off of 100 white German men, feminist cackling would be heard across the Atlantic.

So its free speech to intentionally misrepresent points to support your point. Check my posting history, im as red as they come. But this is blatant white supremacism. Let us go down the route of CH then.... if one rape CLAIM (and we know how tenuous these are) suddenly means 1000 refugees are raping people. WE OUT OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD BE SCEPTICAL OF SUCH CLAIMS.

I love how they claim they took it down because it was being "brigaded" by 4chan. It's not like 4chan made the story up. They are simply moving it to the top of your forum. Considering how that's a topic that should be of a lot of interest to women in general, and women in Germany, specifically, it's pretty disingenuous to cite that as a reason for canning it from 2X.

It's not that people don't care about rape by minority groups. They're just petrified that if any attention is given to anything other than the primary issue of female power over the majority cis-white-male-patriarchy engine, then they'll lose the war. It's the same reason you can't raise pro-male issues that aren't anti-woman in the slightest.

"My best friend was raped in prison last night." "OMG shitlord women are raped more shut up about your privileged patriarchy and cry me a river about your one stupid rape."

"My dog died last night." "OMG shitlord why are you comparing women to dogs?" "Uh...I wasn't. I was just talking about my dog?" "And not about women and the issues we face?! Fucking misogynist."

If we take our eye off the ball for a single second, people might realize that women are stupid cunts and stop taking this feminism thing seriously. We can't let that happen. Down with men! But just white middle class men from the United States and Europe.

The fact that a mod (who also mods ShitRedditSays) removed the news story from TwoX is mind boggling. It just goes to show that womens' issues themselves are not actually what drives them. It's just something for them to mask their anger under.

Other than that, the muslims might actually be higher on the left wing pity hierarchy than women.

It's not that they are pitied... It's that women actually want strong male authority figures in their life.

But will deny it until the day they die.

If they admitted to it, it would allow non male authority figures (beta men) to emulate alpha qualities.

They want men that just get it. Even if that means takeover of Western European / u.s. Culture by Islamic militants.

The MAJORITY of women will ADMIT to having a fantasy about being raped. I'm not saying they would enjoy the actual act itself. But how many times do you need to see it in action before you realize that women are TERRIBLE at determining what will give them the most happiness in life.

They see conquering heroes coming to save them from the weak culture they are trapped and unhappy in (in record numbers) .

the fact that a grown man thinks theres anything of value to be earned by reading things there boggles my mind. Like a fisherman, staring at spawning salmon all day, everyone else is busy building better nets and hooks

The really ironic thing is if those Muslim "refugee" types that they rush to defend end up acquiring too much power, they will have no problem putting the femicunts in their place. You think you are oh so oppressed now, how about some Sharia Law and a REAL patriarchy?

Those white men you want to keep shitting all over are your best defense against the criminal acts, but the way white men have been so demonized and emasculated by modern society...

I can't find it, but there was a great post on here that this is what women deep down really want. It had everything to do with Muslim Patriarchy and the Beta West being completely overtaken by Islam...Very scary stuff, to me.

I feel like people are terrified of Islam...I'm not terrified to speak up about it anymore. I've been doing it for a while around friends and family...I get horrible looks. I don't believe there is such a thing as "Radical Islam", I only think there is Islam. The radicals are just martyred examples of what the general population wishes they were.

I can't find it, but there was a great post on here that this is what women deep down really want. It had everything to do with Muslim Patriarchy and the Beta West being completely overtaken by Islam...Very scary stuff, to me.

Of course not everyone is going to shoot up a place but the guy's point still stands, there is no radical Islam, just Islam. Some Muslims like yourself choose not to carry out the directives of your holy book.

Yes, you should renounce the Muslim part of your identity. Passively following a religion that advocates horrific acts against humanity only encourages it's active followers by giving it more strength in numbers. You should tell your family members what a fucked up religion it is and encourage then to renounce that part of their identity as well.

Have you heard of an accomplice to a murder? That's essentially what you are.

I'm not Christian. I don't follow any religions. Anyone that follows a book of fairytales written thousands of years ago is a moron. You can pick out the wisdon from these books and leave it at that.

These holy books are all shady and can be rationalized and circle-jerked to oblivion. There's no point in this argument.

I'm an apatheist. The question of whether God exists is meaningless to me. If God popped in and said hello, we'd all be excited for a day or two, but it wouldn't affect anything in the long run. We'd still need to figure out our purpose in life.

I am apathetic towards religion and I think it's pointless to even discuss it. My family members don't talk about spiritual things and if I were to talk to them about it, they'd probably crack jokes. My family can't even be serious in the most serious situations. We just don't talk about this stuff.

My approach is a lot more constructive than most anti-theists because anti-theists make Muslims defensive and their natural reaction is to hold on to that identity even more. You tell Muslims Islam orders Muslims to kill non-believers, they will go and read into their religion and contextualize it until it makes sense and complements their morals. They will say "only during defensive wars". It's such a pointless argument. If anything, you are more of an accomplice than I am. Every time you try to bring a Muslim to "the truth", they get more attached to their religion.

That being said, I am still free to enjoy the things that make sense to me in Islam. I don't have to renounce any part of my identity that isn't hurting anyone because each person is responsible for their actions. I am culturally Muslim, can't do anything about that.

You follow a religion based on the words of an avowed child molester, who savagely conquered vast stretches of the world because they didn't believe in him. Fuck Mohammed, fuck Islam, and fuck you too. I should've killed more of the bastards while I had a weapon in Iraq!

lets get some perspective here, it's a globalism trend. the north isn't breeding (and it shouldn't we are out of earth) and the south has a wealth of labour. it needs to be shared, the same as the capital of the north into bringing up the south.

the question is sort of like you said. how to integrate the flow of labour, without losing the benefits of the civilized north?

I'd say same as reddit, by slowing growth, allowing time for integration. Take TRP, add about 10% of users from the general public. you'll see discourse here go down. it's because theres too many who aren't integrated at once. eternal september.

this is just societies version of eternal september. Canada integrated a lot of sikhs in the 80s, and it's 3 generations in now, and they are as Canadian as maple syrup. Muslims could be the same thing. but tribalism isn't how we get there, any more than apolagetics is...

In our case, it was Air India flight cases, getting Military issued turbans, and 20 years of putting up with being called 'pakis' and we came out the other side. Just welcome them in, hold fast to the principles that you have, and pray that government doesn't do it too fast for them to integrate properly.

It's just a system, and europe is historically bad at integration. they need to start taking cues from america and canada from the last 100 years, we got the irish, italians, jews, sikhs and chineese into here, a few hiccups, but now are pretty much a melting pot

Blacks already do it, red bone, yellow bone, all this shit. Basically among blacks, the darker you are, the less status, the lighter skin, the better. Especially if it's a chick. You seriously can't make this shit up. The people who go on about race the most actually have a more nuanced way to discriminate based upon one's amount of blackness. Hilarious. That's the future for EVERYONE if all of humanity is mixed into a muddied brown obscurity.

Exactly. You see stuff like that on Twitter all the time. "Light skin niggas this, dark skin niggas this". Even if it sounds like they're joking it's very real. I overheard a black man telling his wife about someone and she said "Oh, that nice light skinned girl?"

Exactly, getting rid of white people won't end racism, if anything it will just change its complexion, people will find new ways to hate and segregate regardless of how diverse (or not) the rainbow is.

Hell people will segregate themselves even if we were all the same tone of gray
I remember when I was younger I told a teacher that if we started cloning humans we'd view them as second class citizens because we just tend to group shit together

I spent some time in India and this shit is so true. One of our group was Bengali American and when we visited isolated towns they would literally shoo him away when they took pictures with us because to them he was just another dark skinned Indian.

We did a sustainable development project with a small group of Indian students, and I still get FB friend requests from their cousins/aunties/friends who I never even met because there is social status to be had from them being friends with white westerners.

All of the glamorous ads feature 1/16th Indians that are otherwise white because that is socially desirable but technically still represents Indian people.

This could well be because now the country is trying to get past the caste system so they needed to find another way to segregate.

The Danish aren't fond of the Swedes. The English and French hate each other. The Tutsis and Hutus chopped each other to pieces in Rwanda. The Serbs Bosnians and Croats slaughtered each other in the 90s. The Shi'ites and Sunnis are in perpetual sectarian conflict. The Catholics and Protestants of Europe hated each other for centuries. These are all relatively localized disputes that arose between people who are the same race but slightly different in other ways.

It's amazing how we think the world is always progressing towards getting along, when really we are just finding new things to fight about every time we get past the current reason to hate.

It is clearly part of human nature and tribalism. I'm not saying we should accept discrimination, but to think we can all get along by censoring free speech and demonizing those who don't subscribe to the progressive ideals is fucking hilarious.

Tldr: when race eventually ceases to exist we will just find new and elaborate ways to have ingroups and undesirables. It's just the way the world turns.

I can't remember where I read it, but a scientist/philosopher/anthropologist once produced a theory regarding the ancient Incan and Mayan societies' use of human sacrifices.

Essentially, humans CRAVE an enemy. There always has to be an "us" and "them". By sacrificing someone occasionally, they produced a "them" for the remainder of society to gather together and demonise or at least view as different.

Doesn't seem so barbaric when you compare it to the modern day media jerking our strings over black/white, islam/west issues does it?

According to Steven Pinker's book 'The Better Angles of Our Nature' (he's actually atheist), things are getting much better. He has a lot of empirical evidence that we're living in an unprecedented time of peace. Violence is down all across the board. Worth listening to what he has to say.

well, white is just the body fighting a vitamin D deficiency. And for brown countries, a way of signalling you don't have to work in the sun like a pleb, white is just signalling affluence and lack of menial labour.

It makes perfect sense. dark blacks worked the field, light skinned blacks were house-niggers... of course there was hate, they were the ones who liked the masters, and were treated better generally.

I don't think the explanation is that complicated. That may be one of the reasons behind it, but it gives more of a vibe of people preferring lighter shades for the sheer beauty and cleanness of it. "Pure" and all that stuff.

In Europe some centuries ago extreme whiteness was looked for because it meant you were rich and did not have to work outside in fields or whatever (where the sun would tan your skin).

During the 90's with more and more people working in front of computers inside offices, tanned skin became attractive, with people even paying for artificial tanning sessions, because it was associated with being outside and not needing to work. Then sun exposure and even more artificial tan was discovered to promote cancer and skin aging, so the trend reversed again.

So it is very possible that the preference for whiteness (and tanning in the 90's early 2000) is just a proxy for money. People, most probably unconsciously, associate lighter skin with wealth.

My Fiance is Chinese Australian and I find this to be true. I find them to be more racist than whites (i am white).

I idea behind why this is is true, is that as a white man I know I have to be really really careful with any critical thing I say, otherwise I will get racist thrown in my face. But I think with minorities they don't need to worry about it as much and therefore end up being more racist without realizing it.

I am an atheist and I have been called racist because I wrote on fb i disagree with Islam. I tried to explain to commenters that Islam isn't a race of people, but eventually i just gave up!

Liberalism is a mental disorder. Tons of rich liberals who hate as much as poor people. Tribalism is the core of liberalism. There can only be peace when you are of their tribe. Just like Africa or the ME.

You could start with crime stats. But people would say it's only economics not race. But there are plenty of poor white people who don't attack others. You could look at the most and least civilized places in the world and try to draw a parallel. You could live among different races and see what your personal experiences were. But then they'd say your vision was tainted by privilege.

I've learned overtime that the least racist people on the planet are probably conservative whites who are likely to judge you based on your character rather than ethnic background. Brown people, Arabs in particular, are about as racist as they come.

Conservative whites are racist as fuck, though not to the cartoonish levels that the media would have us believe. I worked at a country club as a kid and the shit these guys say when they think its "just us" is really racist. Not on the level of like how Caribbean blacks hate American blacks, but similar levels in a different flavor.

Its what Patrice O'neal called "that racist shit you can never prove".

Well, from a story I once read....we were all brown at one time in history. Even built a giant tower. However, somebody didn't care for that too much and scattered everyone across the planet and made them speak in different languages. Might be just a story but overall story is that we were once united and the same Then, something happened and every said fuck everyone and went did their own thing.

This is why white people should just be racist instead of having a defeatist attitude but the problem is it will morph into supremacy and oppression as white people have a tendency to whoop too much ass when properly motivated. White people would rather fall on their sword and not play bad guy than to ensure the continued survival of their race. We will be the first major ethnicity to get cucked out of existence and it will be completely voluntary.

Pretty sure he wasn't talking about the media in the 17th century, but rather the agenda today.

Edit: I'm Australian, and there is a HUGE multicultural push here. Has been happening my whole life. I've never understood exactly why we need to place such an emphasis on bringing in foreigners, but apparently it's for "cultural" reasons or some shit. Well, I can't remember the last time I saw a decent street party or a neighbourhood barbecue, and that was once a mainstay of Aussie culture. I feel like our culture is being diluted rather than reinforced.

No other race would be as benevolent, imposed or not. For example take in consideration the race you rave so much about, the one that pretends to be smarter while actually having never produced any of the highest intellectual achievements of the humanity. The only thing that race is very good about, is fraud. That race has lived his entire history parasiting other nations and populations and trying in any way to insediate and destroy them, in spite of how good they were treated.

But go ahead and try to spin the narrative in your favour, as is compulsive to the likes of you.

People who say this are labeled as "racist" but what you say is true and sad.

not because of that, but because you think something being 'white' is anything other than a recessive gene, and a vitamin D deficiency adaptation.

Why do you think everyone associates with american movies instead of local ones (india aside), it's because of globalism. No one bitches that american movies are killing all others, they just sit down and watch the avengers.

I don't know about you man, but these biracial women are some of the most beautiful women I've ever seen.

And you can still get the Asian look out of people that don't look Asian. My sister is black and her husband is black and their child has green eyes and pale caramel skin. So if anything it'll just become more rare.

Once we are all a kind of muddied light brown we wont have blue eyed blondes and green eyed redheads. Its really sad.

Bio major here. This is actually false. Intermixing does not lead to disappearance or even reduction of recessive alleles. Recessive alleles are only phenotypically hidden in the presence of dominant alleles. They are still there in the same quantity and will manifest themselves whenever the dominant alleles are not in the mix.

E.g. lets say brown eyes are dominant and blue eyes are recessive. While its true that the first generation after a cross between pure blue and pure brown eyes will be all brown, the number of blue eyes alleles will still be 50%. The second generation will be 25% blue again and as long as mixing is random it will stay in those exact proportions for all future generations.

When I was doing volunteer work down in the Caribbean I saw all types of mulatos. With all the European powers trading control, all the indigenous populations, all the immigrants from other commonwealths BITD such as Hong Kong/India, there were all kinds of interesting mulatos.

Like you would see black girls with natural blonde or even red hair. Same thing with green or blue eyes.

That doesn't make them the same thing as a Nordic blond or an Irish lass.

So yes, in some cases the recessive alleles will be preserved, but some will eventually be bred out.

Even if the alleles survive, a west indian girl with blond/red hair can't hold a candle to a young Julianne Moore or Tiger Woods ex-wife.

The phenotype is destroyed in a single generation, even if the alleles survive.

But it won't. You have to understand that just because an allele isn't phenotypically expressed doesn't mean it is being bred out... unless it is somehow disadvantageous in another way, it will not be selected against and claim a similar proportion of the gene pool.

I think what you are referring to is the combination of a wide range of recessive traits without any dominant traits getting in the mix. That will indeed be rarer and rarer to observe but it will still happen occasionally.

You don't even need to add the per capita part. There are 3 times more rapes reported in prisons than all rapes outside of prisons combined. Nearly 100% of the prison rapes are male victims. Even if 100% of the non-prison rapes were female victims (which is highly unlikely), that's still 3 times as often.

Actually now that I think about it that might not be super far off the truth if you're talking about prison rapes. Between the fact that men are inherently less likely to report a rape because unlike women who are nearly idolized for "getting through it" men are often shamed either directly, or indirectly, and the fact that it's dangerous to snitch in a prison. I wouldn't be surprised if only 1 in 10 prison rapes are actually reported.

You know I heard that women are openly raped in classrooms on college campuses. I even heard of this one girl, on her first day was just arriving, and as soon as she stepped foot on campus 5 guys gang raped her.

It's not that people don't care about rape by minority groups. They're just petrified that if any attention is given to anything other than the primary issue of female power over the majority cis-white-male-patriarchy engine

This, and reporting that Syrian immigrants are raping nice, welcoming German women doesn't jive with the PC Narrative about how evil America and Trump are for not wanting thousands of immigrants pouring in simultaneously. Seriously, even the account of the US reporter who was gang-raped in Egypt* while covering a story was fucking BURIED (relevant link edit: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/lara-logan-breaks-silence-on-cairo-assault/).

Meanwhile, they're trying to manufacture causation between college football and "rape culture" on American university campuses.

Come on. I hate feminism as much as you do but what you describe isn't possible.

A thousand rapes and no one bats an eye? It can't be a conspiracy that big. I mean, even if most people are blinded by feminism etc. they still are clever enough. There must be a valid reason why nobody is talking about that, even stupid people couldn't justify not talking about it because it harms indirectly feminism.

When women are actually brutally victimized, it calls attention to the fact that feminism is not actually structured to protect women in ways the patriarchy can. Feminists want you focused on that creepy nerd and that male gaze of the jock over there. Those are problems feminism can properly shame into submission. 1000 immigrants don't give a fuck.

To be honest the problem is also that there is nobody moderate speaking a moderate truth. its either absurdly "nothing happened", or as even here "1000 migrants". yeah 1000, by which you mean less than 100 (how would 1000 people produce only 80 claims) and migrants, by which you mean refugees.

but this is todays problem, polarization. either you have to be for 1.000.000 refugees randomly in your country with 0 checks or you have to be against any LEGAL migration (very different).

either you have to believe in "islam the religion of peace" (who are we fucking kidding), or you have to believe in islam the magical race which makes everyone a raping terrorist.

edit: in come the people who obviously have no idea about Germany. Have you ever been to Germany? There are no Ghettolands here. And there are barely any radical feminsts. Nobody gives a shit about anything like rape culture or stuff like that.

Besides our retirement system is on the verge of collapse. American women on average give birth to 2.1 children (replacement rate). German women on average give birth to 1.2 children. Do you want us to force breed them? If not, and we also don't want our retirees to go hungry, we NEED migration.

I would hope to find a differentiated opinion at least in TRP, if not here, I will not find it anywhere.

And NO its is NOT free speech to wilfully misinterpret facts! If there was 1 rape CLAIM against a mob of white hip hop listeners and I posted 1000 white het hiphop listeners rape women, you would downvote me to hell. Selection bias GOGOGO

To be honest the problem is also that there is nobody moderate speaking a moderate truth.

Interesting - you have ZERO evidence that these claims aren't true, and yet you're already claiming the numbers are exaggerated.

its either absurdly "nothing happened", or as even here "1000 migrants". yeah 1000, by which you mean less than 100

The estimate is based on eyewitness accounts. On what are you basing your 100 number? A hunch?

(how would 1000 people produce only 80 claims)

What, is there some quota that each migrant had to rape one woman? And also, there were also reports of these men shooting fireworks at crowds of people, brawling with each other, and groping women that went past.

and migrants, by which you mean refugees.

80% of the "refugees" into Germany are actually from a wide array of countries other than Syria who are taking advantage of the fact that Germany wasn't vetting anybody. Generally official refugee status is not that easy to get. So yeah, chances are they were mostly migrants.

What, is there some quota that each migrant had to rape one woman? And also, there were also reports of these men shooting fireworks at crowds of people, brawling with each other, and groping women that went past.

In the title it clearly states rape, rob and sexually assault. Do you now equate rape with shooting firework into crowds? That's a wider definition of rape than feminism.

Migrants =/= refugees. Migrants (legal ones) are Italians, greeks and turks for the most part. I don't know if you live in Germany (I do), but these people don't rape anyone in central stations.

Well I am sorry but I see a very clear difference between law abiding and integrating Italians, greeks, Croatians, etc. etc., even turks, and some RANDOM unchecked middle easterns let into the country on a whim of a woman. To group them all as "migrants" does the former ones a great injustice.

But that is what you get. Not liking 1.000.000 uneducated unchecked unasimmilated "migrants" means you cant like beneficial migration, which btw Germanys rent system is in dire need of.

edit: case in point, people coming in and downvoting this (who propably have no idea what its like in Germany or why Germany's demography will destroy our retirement system in like 15 years at latest)

The problem here is that your point doesn't have much of anything to do with mine. I didn't say all migrants were bad, nor did I say Germany doesn't need any. I said that most of the people entering Germany right now are migrants who are posing as refugees, and that is true.

Stop with the straw man arguments, please. I am well educated, and while I'm not perfect, I tend to say no more and no less than what I mean.

No, don't give me this implicitly bullshit. You're distorting my argument because your argument is factually incorrect. It is well known that 80% of the new arrivals in Germany are not refugees, or even Syrian.

Look, attaining refugee status involves a lot of vetting and takes years. Last year, Merkel basically said "If you can get here, we won't vet you and you'll immediately get benefits." At that point, you got a massive migrant surge of people not coming in through proper refugee channels or fleeing actual war zones, and most of whom do not hold actual refugee status with the UN or any other authority. In Germany, they are considered refugees but that's because the German government has chosen to do away with the vetting process that every other authority uses.

Don't tell me it is not biased to say 1000 migrants in Germany rape women.

If it's factual, it isn't biased. Bias is when you distort facts to fit a preconception you hold. And besides that, the reports didn't say that every migrant raped a woman. They said a crowd of roughly a thousand "refugees/migrants/whateveryouwanttocallthem" from MENA had formed in Cologne, and were engaging in several forms of lawless behavior, and that there had been 80 sexual assaults and one rape reported. That's a little different than "OMG A THOUSAND MIGRANTS RAPED WOMEN."

SUMMARY: You are intentionally twisting the arguments and facts because you don't have a leg to stand on, and instead of being a fucking man and admitting it, you want to argue like a woman.

We are not disagreeing on that those MENA people should never have been allowed to come here, never mind encouraged to. What Im trying to explain is how this is used to promote nationalistic and racist agendas, by expanding these people's actions COMMONLY REFERRED TO IN GERMANY AS REFUGEES (if you don't want to accept that it doesn't change what they are called in Germany), to REGULAR LAW ABIDING MIGRANTS from south and eastern Europe. Now if you tell me that polish workers who have been here for 20 years are the same as Syrians, you are a madman.

Migration always benefits the migrants, else no migration would occur. Non-white migration/colonization never benefits the native population, which is Shoah'd, expelled, or simply fails to reproduce; just look to the Moorish invasion of Europe, the Japanese invasion of China, or the last 1400 years of Moslem invasions of each other. White migration/colonization sometimes benefits the native population; it didn't in America or Australia, but was immensely beneficial to the natives of South Africa and India.

Anyway, the general point is that any foreign immigration/invasion of non-Germans into Germany is ultimately poisonous to the German nation, especially as the Germans are arguably the pinnacle of civilized peoples.

I certainly don't think it will no. But if we brought smart Chinese people for example, who I am sure would be delighted to live in Germany, then these immigrants (!) would pay yeah. That is what I would like to see.

Aha... So instead of importing educated people from all over the world with actual incentives, instead of incentivizing German women to have children, instead of focusing on the German elderly and the failing retirees ... your solution to Germany's debt problem, due to essentially falling population is... to... import... unskilled... essentially totally incompatible... financial... refugees... without... even... doing... basic... immigration checks...

Usually I dont respond to ad hominems, but this time Ill make an exception. Your answer is as inconsistent as your previous comment. You have not idea what youre talking about and you clearly have some sort of inner conflict going on. Good luck with that. I cant even imagine whats its like to be a beta cuckboi from Germany right now. You have my pity.

I said that same thing multiple times. But if you want to convince yourself that anyone who is not a white supremacist and disagrees with stating "1000 migrants rape women on new years eve" must be a leftist idiot, then go ahead, but without me.

Tell me how come we as the red pill suddenly believe all random rape claims, as WE OF ALL should know better. 1 rape claim suddenly 1000 refugees are wildly raping German women. Give me a break, this is us turning into CH with its WS writers.

The best part about that is that of REPORTED rapes every year, about 3 out of 4 are male victims. Considering that a female rape victim is likely to receive at least some sympathy while a male victim will receive none (and more likely even active antipathy), you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the reporting rates for rape are LOWER among women than they are among males.

TL;DR: Men get raped at least 3 times more often then women in the US, but somehow rape is a "women's rights issue". Go fuck yourselves, you fat feminist pigs.

Those who benefit most from freedom are often the worst defenders of it.

Why? Because they have grown soft, too trusting, too gullible. Freedom gave them the opportunity to indulge their own feelings absent of reality. Absent of the harsh truths of life. Absent of the power struggles most face. Everywhere they look, they see with their feelings ... not the power struggle that lies underneath. This describes modern-day Progressives in a nutshell.

But the reality is that all things in this world are about power. When you forget that, you are lost. Easily taken advantage of. If that reminds you of your old blue pill self at all, it should. The struggle is life itself. Lift, game, conquer, etc. Without the struggle, we are nothing.

Why? Because they have grown soft, too trusting, too gullible. Freedom gave them the opportunity to indulge their own feelings absent of reality. Absent of the harsh truths of life. Absent of the power struggles most face. Everywhere they look, they see with their feelings ... not the power struggle that lies underneath. This describes modern-day Progressives in a nutshell.

Nah, it's because Germany didn't help the Jews the first time around (the Holocaust), and don't want to be compared to Nazis the second time around.

The difference is that the first time around, the Jews weren't helped because of an ingrained racism consistent with the global countries (no country helped the Jews, even Canada turned them back). That's not to say that not one citizen helped, but there wasn't a government investment made.

This time, however, there is a rational fear of a culture clash (the evidence of what we're seeing now all over Europe and Scandinavia).

That being said, it does provide insight as to why people think Israel is racist towards Blacks (which it's not). They view it as BlackStruggle 2.0 ^(TM).

and basically deny asylum to any non-white refugees.

Then why do Israeli Arabs exist, why are they allowed to marry, vote, have jobs, the right to political representation (basically everything South African apartheid is not), and why do they like living in Israel when they could go to Gaza? Even the ones who refuse full citizenship (on personal principles, so as to not recognize Israel's sovereignty) are ensured that they have the right to apply for citizenship, are entitled to municipal services, and have municipal voting rights. When they're jailed, why are they allowed to pursue education at the Open University in Israel instead of rotting away in a prison (as their enemies do to them)?

right on - all the Jew-bashing from the right really confuses me because if anything, the Jews have it figured out. But then again they live in the shadow of the holocaust and know what happens if they let themselves be victimised. The rest of the west has grown too complacent because the last war we fought were against someone so caricature-like in his evilness that the western standpoint is basically "prevent bad people from getting into power", leading to the massive expansion of the left and its "we're so tolerant!" rhetoric. Politically, we all live in the shadow of WW2.

many Ashkenazim are slightly racist even towards their fellow Jews, such as mizrahim and ethiopian jews.

That's such a cop-out. Find me one person who is not "slightly racist", or as Jesus says (if you're into that sort of thing) "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Netanyahu rejects calls to accept refugees.

This is because Israel is such a small country that accepting Syrian refugees, black or not, would put an incredible strain on their system. Other countries do this (or should have), it's not personal.

The only downside, is that the liberal Jews in the U.S. advocate "diversity" for the non-Jewish countries, whereas when it comes to their own country, they protect it wholeheartedly from it .

Israel is a country based on a religious majority. It was set up to ensure that another Holocaust would never occur again. The first time the Holocaust happened, a majority of those who died were killed because no one else, in every country on Earth, would accept them en masse. The Holocaust was built around the Jew's statelessness, and overall ingrained antisemitism (which is still prevalent today), so its existence is crucial to the survival of the Jewish people.

The difference is that while you'd have to abide by some religious rules once you enter Israel, Israel doesn't have capital punishment (unlike every other country in the Middle East), and has a huge scientific and technology sector. Overall, they are more liberal than any other country in the Middle East. Women can walk around without requiring male company, and gays can be gay freely without threats. Do you ever wonder why Google, Microsoft, and virtually every tech company out there has offices in Israel?

And you completely ignored my argument about the jailed Palestinian, who (sic!) dared to lie about his ethnicity when sleeping with a jewish woman. Bo-hoo! What a crime! He must be jailed for 30+ for this! Oh wait... he already is. So democratic...

This is a one-off case, and not the norm. Drastic examples happen in countless countries, this is not evidence of a trend but only an outlier. AND is akin to rape, especially when both sides highly value their ethnicities. If a Jewish man pretended to be Arab to sleep with an Arab, the exact same situation would occur.

Or banning a novel solely because it's about the love between a Palestinian and a Jewish person, apparently they don't want it in Israel because it might promote mixed marriages between Jews and non-Jews. Oy Vey!

Your source is the Daily Mail. Please corroborate the story with better articles.

Israel is economically well, receives roughly ~million USD in aid per day, has high HDI and whatnot, but it's not true democracy.

The aid it receives isn't in cash, it's in technology and (mostly) guns. In return, it sends over plenty of tech that American manufacturers use.

Also, since when marriages of non-Jews + jews is the "genocide of the Jews" or "we must save the Jewish ethnicity etc"?

Since Israel was founded, on the basis of Jewish majority representation.

Well, that's not the case in Israel, where marriages between palestinians and jews are frowned upon and are discouraged.

And? You imply only Israel frowns upon it, the truth is both sides do.

So you've gotta be consecutive, if you're against mixing families between jews and palestinians, then you shouldn't advocate multiculturalism for Europe.

I advocate for multiculturalism in Europe, but am not a hypocrite, because I AM NOT advocating for Islamism, either in Europe, Israel, or anywhere else.

You infantilize Palestinians, they're just as guilty as everyone else.

The Muslim Student Association in particular was, and still is, heavily funded by Saudi Arabian interests.

This means there are Islamic civil rights groups in the West that conspire to take away the very freedoms and rights they have been granted. Whether such groups care to admit it, there are activist groups seemingly innocuously tinged with terrorist ties.

So Muslims roots and helping non-Muslims (especially Jews) is the exception rather than the rule.

But we can continue to circle-jerk about the "Big Bad Israel" if it makes you feel better.

The legitimacy comes into question when the people who drafted the treaty didn't take the Jewish immigrants themselves. Legal standing aside, it's more of a sentiment about people feeling screwed over. You can defend the legality (aka victors' decisions), but that doesn't change the ethics of what was done. On a personal level, how would you feel if a foreign entity mandated you share your home? Boggles the mind indeed.

On a personal level, how would you feel if a foreign entity mandated you share your home? Boggles the mind indeed.

The British Mandate of Palestine didn't just establish Israel, but established both Jordan and Egypt as the home for the Palestinians.

Furthermore, the violence didn't start after the Creation of Israel in 1948, there are plenty of events of Jews being attacked in the area (such as the massacre of Hebron in 1929), long before they even had a state.

Let's be honest, I can relate to the Arabs feeling screwed over that someone else was generous with their territory on behalf of another people (they should just get used to the fact that you can't start wars and not lose territory over it).

Israelis would be better off if they pointed out the fact that Israel took in more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than ethnic Arabs were fleeing from Israel; and that the territory of Israel is roughly 25% (IIRC) of the territory Arab Jews have left behind in their countries of origin without any compensation whatsoever, only to start again from scratch in Israel. Fuck, according to Wikipedia Baghdad was 40% Jewish a century ago, what has become of that?

I think most of us agree that manifest destiny and what happened to the native Americans is a tragedy, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. It's not up to me what restitutions were made. Also can you provide a source on the treatment of Israelis vs Palestinians? And treatment by who exactly.

Jews were banned from universities and colleges, with the same policies that are used to cut back on the representation status of Asians on campuses today.

The US liberated one concentrated killing area, but ultimately their credit is overblown in terms of how important they were to the war effort.

The sad truth is that no country can claim to have ended the war - it only ended because Hitler made too many mistakes near the end. Such as betraying Russia and thus having to fight a war on two fronts. The Japanese, after hearing about the Russian betrayal, were concerned that Hitler would betray them as well, and the whole thing collapsed from there.

very smart observation, i hadn't thought of it that way. maybe german authorities are pulling strings behind the ban on major subreddits? politicians play dirty, it's certainly not out of their ability

I mean, I have nothing against immigrants, or even economic migrants. But if they want to be in a specific country, they have to pass the same immigration standards as all other immigrants, and they have to abide by the country's rules. Some of the greatest inventors and innovators of all time were immigrants - Nikola Tesla, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, even Jim Carrey. They're greatful to be in their new country, and will actively (usually) work hard to leave it better than how they found it.

politicians play dirty, it's certainly not out of their ability

Sometimes it gets gloriously dirty, such as when Putin brought his dog to a meeting with Merkel - despite knowing she'd been mauled by a similar dog at birth.

Time and again, history has shown us that aggression and ambition are winning attributes. And people wonder why women like these things in men. RP is all around us, but so few people can see it. Astounding and confounding.

Yes and no. There's plenty of evidence to suggest this is intentional, but even that intent is based on understanding the power of these trends. The trends themselves are inevitable, the intentional efforts of the elite merely serve to make them utterly invincible.

The struggle should be there, but so should masculine respect and deference for true leadership. Society can't survive without it. The progressives took this "respect" and ran too far off to the left until it became a mockery.

In Germany 4 years ago, one of the things I noticed immediately, and shared with my American friends, was how safe the country felt. I explained that all the social services gave people little incentive to commit crime. The German's looked at it as, "Yes, some people are abusing the system, but we rather provide the basics for them, rather than have them resort to crime to get by." And seriously, the country, in even the bad parts, felt safe -- the worse that would happen is you'd get scammed or have your bike stolen. But nothing serious. Walking through a poor immigrant neighborhood (mostly Turkish) brought absolutely no worry into me. Even when I went to the poor white areas, which mainly consist of radical anarchist neo-nazis, I never once felt threatened -- hostility for sure, but never any serious physical threat.

In the past, they let immigrants trickle in, so even the more hostile ones would have time to settle down and feel like a significant cultural minority. This created a lot of pressures for them to integrate into German culture.

Now, fast forward to today, and that's all changed. The mass influx of these immigrants allowed them to create ingroups where they don't need to deviate nor change from their current cultural hang ups. They aren't integrating, nor are they inviting. Today, I actually feel worried at times walking down the street. I have friends tell me about being robbed, I've seen people get punched, and stores actually broken into and robbed. It's crazy -- I'm sure it occasionally has happened in the past, but now it's actually at a frequency where I notice it. It's crazy.

In the past, when I was alone at night, drunk, walking home at 3am across a bridge in an emptied out neighborhood with everyone asleep, and saw a group of 5 brown guys walking in my direction... I wouldn't really worry. I'd just expect them walk past me, and maybe offer me some drugs for sale at the most. But now, when I see 5 immigrants walking in my direction while I'm alone and it's empty on the streets, I definitely get a slight chill.

It's crazy how much the nation has changed... And this whole thing is actually quite interesting to watch. Since the German people have a pretty MASSIVE insecurity about being seen as nationalists or racists, you get some weird groups. You have one camp of German's who just completely ignore it. They wont pick sides and try to evade the subject all together. Then you have the bleeding hearts who constantly try to defend the immigrants and make up excuses for their behavior like, "Oh they are in a new land and are having a hard time transitioning from a place of war, chaos, tyranny, etc..."... Then you got a new and interesting camp which is growing. German's who were otherwise afraid of being viewed as racist, are actually coming out and being openly against an ethnic group. I've NEVER seen that from a casual normal German in the past. The only ones that would do that would be the neo-nazis and anarchists. But now I see regular German's being openly unsupportive of it all. It's crazy.

The mass influx of these immigrants allowed them to create ingroups where they don't need to deviate nor change from their current cultural hang ups.

It's even worse than that in my opinion. It is modus operandi especially for Muslim groups.

As long as they percieve themselves to be weaker and a minority, they will keep their heads down and play nice, but as soon as they've got leverage their behaviour will change drastically.

That's even how Mohammed behaved. All those tolerant things he said about people with other religious believes, where made when Islam was a rather small movement and as soon as they rose to power, the commandments of violence where propagated.

When it comes to the Muslims, they are actually pretty upset about it, because it's making them look bad, and essentially making their life harder while they try to get by. However, Muslims tend to turn a blind eye to things. So while they don't necessarily like what's going on, they don't really speak out actively against it.

People coming from Muslim countries or having been brought up with such background are not necessarily Muslims in my opinion.

There are many here in Germany (I happen to live in Cologne by the way) who self-identify as Muslim, but they are actually only holding onto some of the rituals, like i.e. mutilating their boy's genitals or not eating pork, in the same way that many Westerners practice Christmas and Easter and self-identify as being part of a Christian culture, but they are actually no Christians.

Talking about ISIL, the majority of practicing (sunny) Muslims at the very least sympathize with them. Especially the men.

The NYE-incedents are perfectly congruent with what I have learnt about the opinion many Muslims have of us Germans and especially our women. We are all dirty infidel cowards and that is why it is perfectly acceptable to lie to us, rip us off, etc. pp. and all our women are dirty whores (mostly true unfortunately). What you can take, that is yours - women included.

Working in the kitchen with many Muslims especially from Africa, I've witnessed the lifecycle of a first generation young male Muslim in Germany more than once.

They come here and they are shocked about the cultural differences and especially how women are allowed to behave. After some time - usually 3-9 months - they will loosen up. They have made friends with other guys from their home countries, and they explained to them, that it's perfectly OK to fuck German women before marriage, since they are dirty whores and it doesn't count. They'll also be partying very hard. some only take drugs, some other start selling.

They will simultaniously start looking for an ugly landwhale to marry. Once they got that, their status of residency will be changed to permanent.

They will wait for three years, which is the minimum period of time when their status cannot be revoked, and then divorce from the bitch. Divorce rape isn't as bad here in Germany and they will mostly still be students, so there is nothing to gain from them anyways.

They will then go and get a "good" woman to marry from their homecountry. Depending from where they are, that woman now has to wear the appropriate headwear or even a burka and everything in between.

They will then also start living the life of a good and devout Muslim.

Be careful not to confuse Salafi/Wahhabi beliefs with traditional Islam, Salafis/wahhabis are a creation of the west along with Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/al Qaeda and the states that sponsor them like Saudi Arabia. If you want to learn true islam then you must study Shia Islam. Billions have literally been spent to propagate salafi/wahhabi beliefs as actually islamic. Don't fall for the deception.

We now know that tha Saudis are spending huge amounts of money to propagate Wahhabism/Salafism. We need to get our politicians to start paying attention to this and outlaw this abomination.
From what I know the Shia Islam is not that different from Sunni however. It still has Jihad and the same propagation methods. Those conquered would still have to pay jizya. While it surely is lesser evil compared to Salafism/Wahhabism, it is still not the religion I would deem compatible with European culture.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. But Shiites do not have a different version of Quran. And as long as Quran remains unchanged from it's original version, Islam will continue to produce jihadist extremists thinking they get some bonus point for turning others to their faith or by even killing them if necessary.

The primary difference is the religious organization. Let's talk about Iran - there was some back and forth in it's secularism, but currently the Shia Clergy runs the state - a theocracy. Theocracy may or may not be a bad thing. But we're still talking about Islam. And unless the Shiites have made some changes in aggressiveness in their version of Islam that I'm not aware of, it does little to make me like Shia more.

But please, explain what other differences are there. I'll gladly learn something new.

It still has Jihad and the same propagation methods. Those conquered would still have to pay jizya.

Muslims are not compelled to propagate the religion. I'm not sure where you got that idea. There is no compulsion in religion, in Islamic belief. Jihad is traditionally a personal struggle and only aggressive against an outside force as a reactionary measure of counter resistance. Nobody likes paying taxes so I understand not liking the jizya, but at least those under that system receive actual benefits, like protection and not serving in the army.

PM me if you want to further discuss religion, because it's not really a red pill topic outside of not falling for media lies.

Seriously do the scholars of islam who condemn isis (the majorityis mean anything to you? You think you are an adequate judge of who is a real or paper Muslim?

And I'm not talking about any scholars who are simply pandering to the media to seem good. Im talking about scholars who don't care about what non Muslims think and have other backwards views and will still condemn isis.

Although I agree that this covering up of bad news is an atrocious attack on freedom of press, I must disagree on the common trope that these mongrels follow "true islam". The scholars who studied the prophets life disagree. And they disagree not to appease people, but because they only care about the preservation of their religion. And truly they are more educated in the religion than the isis frauds.

Okay this is a different line than you were saying previously. You were saying how Isis are truly following Islam where I tried to say that is incorrect.
You now say that due to support of Isis by Muslims the scholars don't matter. Fair enough but that does not mean Isis follow true Islam. As for actual support of Isis among Muslims, I myself am a Muslim and can attest that the supporters of Isis in Muslim majority countries are mostly put of the know of what they are really like. They only hear the propaganda but never the atrocities.
As for the Muslims in western countries who support Isis, they are the least knowledgeable about Islam and so are easiest to deceive.
Regardless of this, I would disagree on the numbers that support Isis. Living in the biggest Muslim community in my Western country, I can tell you that nobody who goes to the mosque supports them.

Research which shows seemingly high rates of support often has more ambiguous Language e.g one poll saying Muslims support terrorism actually asked if they support fighters in Syria, which for many who followed the situation early on would agree with as there were many "good" groups fighting.
My last point would be to look at the link below and understand the reasons for support in these countries.

It's hard to tell if Germany is completely cucked or if the people who are against this massive immigration are just being censored so heavily. On the news here in Australia a couple of weeks ago they tried to say that neo nazis had rioted against police.

I have the feeling though that it would of just been normal people fighting against Anti Fascists and SJWs and the police but again I dont know.

The elite definitely fucked up big by trying to implement their policies of replacing germans with the Middle east so quickly. That whole arguement of needing immigrants to pay for all the social security the baby boomers promised themselves can fuck right off

I think that it's actually that people are starting to realize what a mistake it was to allow 1 million of those 'refugees' in. It's just that the media is controlled by the leftist/feminist agenda trying to push it, so you don't really hear the people's voices. From what i've been reading online, people actually are developing very negative views about the refugees. I find it hilarious how the feminists are openly trying to push Islam without realizing that it will genuinely impose a REAL patriarchy

It's hard to tell if Germany is completely cucked or if the people who are against this massive immigration are just being censored so heavily.

german here. there is a massive bias going in in the media. it borders on pure propaganda. if refugees are presented in the media, its always children, women with children, or the occasional doctor from syria.

the event in cologne on NYE didnt even show up on the most important news sites like spiegel or zeit until the 3rd or 4th of january.

Too many good German men died / were "disappeared" during and after the war. Basically a whole generation was raised by single moms. The result was quite inevitable - a feminized culture, with "emacipated" women and dickless dudes. The dominant culture is psychologically damaging for youth in general. Add public schooling and censored media (aka brainwashing) to the mix and you end up with a generation of clueless, helpless wimps. Women who think they can do everything a man can yet irrationally extend their feminine love (which ought to be reserved for husband and family) to a world of foreigners that only want to abuse it, and men who are incapable of defending themselves or their society due to some mutant variant of good will.

They definitely cucked. Northern European males are extremely beta. All of them are skinny and look like 16 year old boys with patchy beards. Thats why all their women go on trips to the Mediterranean every year to get fucked by swarthy individuals who actually have game.

This is complete nonsense, if anything, it is Southern European women throwing themselves at the handsome blonde men from the North. Northern European men are also much more taller compared t other average short Italian.

Ya because Germans and Scandinavian men are all shy. Darker and swarthier European women are suckers for blonde hair and blue eyed men. As for Scandinavian and Nordic women, true, they love going for darker guys and a lot of them even go interracial with black and brown men.

It's pretty fucking sad. Germany used to be my dream, man, I was planning to move to Berlin once I'd gained a good amount of passive income. If I ever get to that point, though, I'm going somewhere more rational like Australia, with their tighter immigration policy, because there's no way I'm voluntarily going to a warzone.

Yeah, fuck this place. The Germans aren't having children though, so they're accelerating the decline. Birthrate fell to the lowest in the whole world - even though the massive number of children the immigrants are having is included in the statistics, so the actual Germans are having even less than the stats would imply. There will be no war here, for a war there has to be two sides. One side is actively committing cultural suicide.

I don't understand why is that so? Are all the Germans working so hard that they don't have the time to ease in and have a bunch of kids? For the record, I'm from Czech republic, right next to Germany...

Surely it can't be financial issue... Kids in reality do not cost all that much. Sure, there's an initial investment considering the number of accessories needed, but a lot of that is reusable and doesn't have to be bought again with other kids they could have. So what is the fucking problem?

Are all of them viewing kids as a hassle? I got a kid myslef and another is on the way. My daughter's fucking delighted to see me come home from work and do some rough-housing after. Obviously it's more difficult to visit all the places you normally could go to, but once they grow up a little, there's little validity to the so-often-heard argument of 'being locked at home for life'.

As much as I can't stand Islam, there's one thing that oviously makes it work - keep the women at home and have plenty of kids with them. With all the equality being thrown around, it would seem that women seeking career instead of having children is the primary reason why entire West has reproduction issues.

I have two myself and want more, so I'm with you. The birthrate problem is multi-faceted, there are many reasons. Cultural more than financial IMO.

Many attractive young women waste years studying worthless crap at the university, whoring the whole time, on the pill -> many end up infertile, or get so caught up in the student life that by the time they are "ready" to start a family, the biological clock has almost run out. The result is one or no kids. Our degenerate "health insurance" pays for this by subsidizing the pill and offering "free" abortions.

I'm a physician at a fairly large regional hospital. Our gynecologists, whom I hate, perform more abortions on young German women than live births. Sick, sick culture we live in.

Many, after completing vocational training refrain from having a family to get ahead at their jobs. The sister of a friend of mine, for example, won't have children so she can get a permanent position at the travel agency she is training at!! How fucked up is that?

Having more than, say, 2 kids is socially alienating. People consider it "antisocial".

Many are unsure of the future of this shithole of a country and don't want to raise kids in such an atmosphere, thereby compounding the problem. Who wants to send their potential future children to a ghetto school? And home schooling is illegal here, so your kids get taken away and you wind up in jail.

Theft (aka taxes) are absurdly high. You get back a pittance for each child born. It isn't enough to entice the fairly well-to-do German women to have children, but it does encourage the foreigners to have huge families.

This topic has been on my mind for a while already. The thought of going into politics and doing something about it has crossed my mind a couple times before. Problem is it ain't that simple unless you're already rich, famous or got contacts in the right places. Besides, that kind of life is not what I want for myself.

So right now my goal is to just lead by example. Do things right myself. If people ask why do I complicate my life with this (like having kids, for example... believe it or not, people are genuinely asking why was the first one not enough), I explain with facts. And also shame them for being part of the problem especially if they complained about our nation dying out at some point themselves. Shaming is a powerful tool...

Couple years back I read about one Jewish woman that had many kids. She also taught her children that having a big family is basically their goal in life. For the life of me I can't find the article now, but the point was that her family grew very big very fast thanks to her children teaching the same stuff to their own children... Something like 80+ people made up the whole family while she was still alive IIRC. I'm thinking of trying to achieve something similar.

Problem is the moral codex that the children should have. Since I am an atheist, I can't refer to some scripture and say "there, this is how it should be"... And it is true that although religion may just be a tool to control the masses, it provides moral values to many (except Islam, that'll just teach ya to chop heads in the end). I'm thinking I could write down something of my own. Not a religion obviously, but some kind of guidance to fall back on to keep the kids on the right track, hmmm...

Referring to your political thoughts, don't even get me started. You wouldn't get anywhere, politics is a dead end. Just imagine a politician promoting actual solutions to the above problems, starting with the first point. Ain't gonna happen, and even if it did, he'd be utterly destroyed and lose at the polls - not only because the mass media would have a field day making fun of his policies and manufacturing fake consensus for the status quo, but because virtually every woman and a majority of their manwhores would vote against him. The only plausible way to effect real change is to slowly but surely make the state irrelevant by supporting alternative solutions wherever possible, and supporting any and every attempt to reduce the size and scope of government.

As for the moral aspect, what you are saying reminds me of Kant's "categorical imperative", but really it's an empty philosophy. Without God, everything is arbitrary, so it makes little sense to not live as a self-centered hedonist. I wish you luck, however, but also would recommend a reassessment of your religious stance (FWIW I'm a traditional catholic).

Indeed. Politics-wise, the general populace wants solution, but only as long as it doesn't mean they'd have to get their own hands dirty in the process :)

I haven't heard about Categorical Imperative before, so I'm gonna read on that later today. Truly, without God, many may perceive everything as arbitrary. However even Christianity still has potential to get silly. There still are people representing the voice of God that could draw power from their position, so it inherently still is susceptible to misuse. I may even go as far and say that I believe in something. I just don't think the representation of God in the sky is the right one, nor Allah with his virgins, most certainly not Scientologists, Ashtar Sheran, or anything else like that. All of these have structure with people in positions of power and I don't feel like promoting them by becoming a believer in said religion.

I don't want to promote worship in something imaginary (ie. something people claim for hundreds of years that exists but nobody has seen yet). I don't want something with power structure. But then anything without power structure falls quickly to opposition that has it. I'm probably going way out of my scope now...

so I'll have to do a lot more research before I talk more crap about this topic.

This is an issue. Women are not expected to have children. They're expected to NOT have them so they can be reliable employee... This is a cultural problem that needs to be addressed (and yesterday was too late), else we all will be banging heads into the floor in direction of Mecca sooner rather than later.

I remember well that anyone who had more than 1 sibling was picked on regularly for it. Oh the irony...

Future of the country is what it's people make it out to be. Many seem to not understand that THEY are the fucking country.

This is a problem everywhere I believe. Especially since the tax money gets pissed away for questionable purposes more often than not...

I know exactly what you mean, I grew up with two siblings and people constantly commented on how busy it must be at home. Two children per family is the norm in western culture, if you want more you are going to run into some problems.

Most cars are too small for 3 children to comfortably sit in. If you have more than 3 children you will need a minivan.

If you want to go on vacation, most rental houses only have space for 4 people max.

Now that the government doesn't pay for college anymore (at least not where I live, you can lend money but you have to pay everything back eventually.) children rely on their parents for financial support when going to college. College has also become more and more expensive over the years, so parents just can't afford to have too many children.

If you buy food at the supermarket, packages usually contain enough for 4 people.

Dinner tables are usually designed for 4 people.

Couches usually sell per 2 for 2 people each.

Kids require quite a bit of attention and it is very difficult to give all children enough attention in a culture were both men and women are expected to work as well.

These are just some of the top of my head. There are probably many more, if you look carefully you can see the 2 children norm is pretty much everywhere.

Goddamn, you couldn't be anymore right! Just 2 weeks ago I was discussing with wife about having the third eventually and some of the things you mentioned came up - mainly getting a lot bigger car.

Now don't get me wrong, I was planning on getting a new one in a few years anyway, but I was thinking about the Tesla 3. Which obviously isn't going to cut it with three kids if you think about it. And I'm really not gonna be able to afford the Model X (even though my salary is already pretty high given my country's standards...).

Luckily, in Czech republic the state still provides free university education, although there have been talks about making people pay for it lately. So who knows what's it gonna be like in the next 15 years. If it comes to it that education needs to be paid for, I'm sure as hell am not gonna shell out a single penny unless it's STEM field. I'm seeing a trend that skillful people without degree can make a lot more money compared to someone else with bullshit degree.

"Going to a warzone"...
I live in cologne and i feel soo fucking safe. We are far from a warzone. This may be about my neighbourhood, but living here is totally fine and i haven't been scared once since i moved here.

In my little hometown, with about 7000 inhabitants, around 150 immigrants moved into one of our two gyms two months ago. I went there two times when i was back from cologne to see that these people are absolutely fine. It is so much fun to talk to them and show them how to speak german. They are so friendly and thankfull. A friend of mine even had sex with a 17-year old of those people.
This is how I, as a german, see my surrounding. This situation might change more or less, but right now, it's absolutely fine. As long as you don't move to cities like Duisburg or Essen with their criminal groups of people, who are not immigrated at all and living in their "own" neighborhoods.

there's a german saying - "wehret den Anfängen" (beware of the beginnings(?)). I agree with you, there is currently a situation evolving, that is a very fertile ground for hatred.
However, as long as there is no real economic downside to refugees everyone in Germany feels, i don't think this will boil over.
But enter the next economical crisis. Things will change then.

One more piece of information: the gangs raping these women were not refugees of the current syrian crisis. They were a minority already known to the police.

However, as long as there is no real economic downside to refugees everyone in Germany feels, i don't think this will boil over.

The 'refugees' travel from 'Syria' through a lot of safe, mostly European countries to get to Germany. That makes you wonder if they go to these north-western countries for the safety or for the welfare state.

or if they just have heard of Germany. I am from Austria, and we had a lot of Syrians travelling through to Germany.
I think this isn't solely a 'let's use the welfare state', but more of a we-don't-really-know-anything-about-the-other-countries thing.
Many Syrians didn't really know anything about Austria.

Anger and nationalism, one tends to feed the other in a situation like this. Frankly, when it all goes to hell, I wont be able to level judgement against them. In 10 years I would be surprised if the German government looks remotely like today.

Pretty accurate summary. To add onto the German Media is extremely biased in supporting the refugees at all costs. Just an example, the state controlled ZDF did not report on the Cologne matter for a whole day. Even worse is spiegel.de, the biggest online news site which first commentaries all essentially read "it may sound dangerous but blaming refugees would be racist".

However according to recent studies 41% of Germans already have the feeling that critical voices are silenced and not reported in the media. Only 25% believe the picture painted by the media does accurately reflect the situation and the refugees entering Germany.

In the past, they let immigrants trickle in, so even the more hostile ones would have time to settle down and feel like a significant cultural minority. This created a lot of pressures for them to integrate into German culture.

Now, fast forward to today, and that's all changed. The mass influx of these immigrants allowed them to create ingroups where they don't need to deviate nor change from their current cultural hang ups. They aren't integrating, nor are they inviting.

The globalists want to destroy all the pre-existing governments in the middle east so the CIA goes out and finds people like Al Qaeda radicals and now ISIS types and gives them funding in order to overthrow countries like Libya, then later to overthrow Syria. Millions of muslims are forced out of their homes and many are killed.

These people got fucked by the globalists.

Now they are desperate and angry refugees entering Europe with the attitude:

"You European 'types' with your phony left wing ideas destroyed my homeland and fuck you all I deserve to rape your women."

...meanwhile the European far right sees the rapes and wants to fight back.

You now have two Beta groups, manipulated by circumstances to hate each other when they really didn't before this started.

The globalists set each side up to hate each other, then they fight each other and pay no attention to the shot callers, the globalists who are laughing at how easy this was to pull off.

You make good points, but I think there's something at work you aren't considering - Liberalism has suicidal tendencies.

There are many leftists who believe that their society deserves to pass from the world for its past misdeeds. That's why they lay down and just take it so easily, and why they suddenly find their balls when it comes to right wingers in their own society.

Look at the militia types in Oregon - they haven't hurt anyone or destroyed anything, and many liberals are calling for them to be killed. GO IN AND SHOOT TO KILL! It's interesting how easily these supposed pacifists flip the murder switch. Not simply because the right wingers will try to defeat them - the Muslims will do that and worse - but because the Muslims will destroy the west in doing it, which is their aim.

Looking at them through that lens makes a lot of shit make perfect sense. They think their society is so unjust it needs to be destroyed. They're like doom day cultists or something.

What we call liberalism IS cultural Marxism. These people aren't classical liberals. Classical liberals were what we now call libertarians.

When you look back at the history of the progressive left, the hand of Marxism or outright Communism is always there. Who do you think organizes all these student protests? At the student protests here in the States this fall, they were waiving socialist flags and the last word of their slogan was, "We have nothing to lose but our chains," which is basically the last line of the Communist Manifesto - "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!"

they haven't hurt anyone or destroyed anything, and many liberals are calling for them to be killed. GO IN AND SHOOT TO KILL!

Yup and their rationalization of this is because unarmed blacks get killed by the police all the time. Big difference lib-tards....when whites get armed, they don't run from the police like blacks. If whites are armed, it's because they have run down the list of legal ways to handle it and have no other option.

Didn't you hear, Mike Brown was executed on his knees begging for his life. Darren Wilson wanted none of that, said "Hasta La Vista Baby" with his best Dirty Harry impersonation and unloaded his extended clip that should be banned into his brains.

They're overthrowing them to install central banks by the Rothschilds, maximize profits for weapons and 'defense' manufacturers, and exploit cheap labor (lower than minimum wage)

-

Mass immigration causes conflict, provides cheap labor, higher production of children (tax payers and wage slaves), and a reason for the government to crack down on the people under the guise of national security (read: martial law and fema camps).

So let me see if I've got this straight: The Rothschilds who are Jews want to destroy prosperous (and for them, profitable) western democracies who are tolerant of Jews and replace them with Muslim theocracies (that will not be profitable for them) who are intolerant of Jews?

That makes no sense at all. The Rothschilds will not benefit at all from the destruction of Germany. Jews in general will not benefit at all from it. As Islam gains power, Judaism itself is under threat. The very first nuclear weapon that gets into the hands of say, ISIS, is going to result in the destruction of Tel Aviv.

If "the Jews" are running things behind the scenes, then they're doing a shitty job of it. Because they're setting us on a course for a future in which Judaism isn't practiced openly, but exists only as a secret society.

The Rothschilds didn't profit from Stalin, and there weren't any happy Jews or kosher delis in Moscow. They didn't make money at all in Soviet-era Eastern Europe. And they wont do well in a Muslim Caliphate either. They do make money in stable, liberal, western democracies though. So if you think they want to destroy their gravy train in favor of a system that will treat them brutally, you're going to need to explain why.

The elite want to return to a royal/serfdom system of the medieval ages AKA get rid of the middle class (caused by the industrial revolution). They want themselves at the top while everyone else toils in the fields and factories with as much automation as possible. They'll do this with federal reserve banks (every dollar is debt), monopoly on media (indoctrination and distraction), monopoly on food supply (Monsanto), monopoly on water (Hershey's tried), mass surveillance (cameras, online data collection, bio tagging), police state (militarization and lack of accountability), and privatized prisons and soveriegn coproate law ie TPP), and finally immigration. One piece of the puzzle is inserting the poor and unintelligent in significant numbers that destroy the region and out breed the current population. Poor, and just intelligent enough to work the machines and willing to work for less than minimum wage is what they desire (discussed later). Anybody that doesnt cooperate will be taken to privatized prisons.

Feminism caused a devalue of labor in the workforce, help creating the need for multiple household income earners, thus pay more taxes to the government to help pay off debt to the fed which is designed to not have the ability to pay it off. Women destroy power structures and spend all sorts of moneythey dont have on useless crap, placing families into debt and need to toil in corporate america. Women in education and media outlets bombard men with nonsense to betatize them into excepting financially and institutional submission (beta males don't fight back). Gender role swapping creates confusion and androgyny, a being preferred for drones. Uniformity.

-

The subversion and slow boiling of western rights have already hit critical mass. Bread and circuses keep most of the masses distracted while censorship, lies, buzzfeed, flag waiving, and female rescuing and support on MSM to keep them ignorant and divided among political theatre. Except theirs one problem, the internet. It's the last bastion of free speech. 90% of MSM is owned by ~8 companies that control the narrative. The entire school system has become anindoctrination and debt slave installation. And now the online alt-media is the final frontier to prevent information about injustice and truth from 'spreading. We're already seeing this with the new online 'hatespeech' laws with top social networking sites in addition to secret algorithms that hide political dissonance from wall feeds, and intentional censorship by admins and mods on sites like Reddit.

-

Mass surveillance, gun confiscation, and martial law is the final solution. Keep track, disarm, and gather the sheep with heavily armed force. The capital to place humans under boot is already in place (privatized prisons and FEMA camps). Now all they have to do is keep track of everybody's position and communication to track dissonance. The government has stingrays (ground and air), mass data storage systems and tracking by the NSA, no fly and 'extremist' lists without notification of the individuals and groups, and they're trying to access the valuable data storage capital from mega tech companies via bills like CISA (recently passed). These tech companies often know people more than they know them selves with mass automation software that gathers and analyses patterns from users cookies, search history, purchases, online posts, and profile information willingly given plus discrete gps info transmission with cellphones.

sidenote: the government is hoping to bio-tag all new borns in the near future. Dna storage in the database and gps tracking just like a pet.

-

The government has been at guns for awhile. Now laws that require mere accusation can get your guns confiscated. If a relative or significant other claims you're dangerous and so happen to mention you own guns? confiscated. Get a restraining order placed on you by a woman? confiscated. Get convicted of domestic violence, a term with widening definition, and exanded to 'emotional abuse', and ambiguously written? confiscated. Slowly they find little reasons justified by indoctrination and the narrative to get rid of firearms, a powerful tool to fight back against tyranny.

-

As globilzation takes place via military campaigns and the collapsing of boarders both legally and culturally, the fight will turn in house using what stated above to manage it and the police state to enforce it. We're already seeing this with the military (long arm of the elite, read: war is a racket), they're allowing women into combat which means the elite have switched tactics ==> shadow warfare. The elite and government are looking for an excuse to utilize the patriot act and martial law. Mass immigration of poor, diverse, criminal, and often violent ideology peoples will cause the chaos they need to justify it. The FEMA camps will finally be used. They're creating a problem and will present themselves as the solution.

The elite want to return to a royal/serfdom system of the medieval ages AKA get rid of the middle class

Do you think the elite enjoy their iPads? Do you think they use the internet? Do you think they're happy when the new Gulfstream jet comes out, or they get to drive a Bughati?

This is a serious question for you to think about. Do they like those things?

...because those things can only come from a very large pool of educated free people. If you had destroyed the western middle class in the 1950s, there would be no big-screen TVs, no awesome CGI movies, no Google, no Google maps, no Internet, etc. Proof of this comes from the Soviet Union.

And if you destroy the middle class now, you can't even imagine the stuff you'll miss out on in the future.

The middle class will be destroyed financially (wealth gap). They're still gonna do the same job (ie produce ipads) but for small wages. This happens in china, india, and taiwan already (countries that manufacture a major portion of world products, including mobile tech), why cant it happen in the West? Automation would help aid in that problem too. Now you only need a few engineer drones in government and civilian tech who dont ask questions coming from uni to maintain it.

countries that manufacture a major portion of world products, including mobile tech

Manufacture is different from invent. Most things you enjoy were invented by educated and reasonably content people from a large pool of similarly educated and content people. They weren't made by serfs, even if they are manufactured by serfs.

This is why I specifically pointed out the soviet union. They had just as many people as the US, but they didn't invent shit.

So the question is, if you could choose between two alternate universes, which would you pick:

you are like Stalin - you have absolute total control over your population. But, you only have black and white TV, no computers, no fast cars, and the food sucks.

you're a billionaire and politically powerful person in the west. You have all the latest toys. You enjoy the fruits of a technological civilization. And you have plenty of power too.

Red Pill also applies to politics. It's a separate spectrum from women, but it still has the same concept in that Blue Pill politics is actually believing that the governments presented to the citizens are as they appear.

In reality, they are all puppets of the globalists, banking elite and Rothschilds and pretty much all politicians will do their bidding.

Example, Republicans and Democrats. The blue pill way is to believe there is actually a difference between the two parties. The red pill way is to understand that there is no difference, they are owned and controlled by the same globalist interests, they just use different talking points to rile up certain factions of the base.

US Government is just a puppet government orchestrated behind the scenes by mega donors, the ultra elite, and the Rothschilds.

Now I get Bernie Sanders a bit more... And I need to learn more about fucking financing. I'm 23, I'm fucking done buying bullshit. I already planned to pay of all my shit since I'm broke and in debt, how typical right. But I'll end the year far from how I am right now. The film was cartoony but it doesn't matter, it's good to be reminded about the temptations of buying shit you don't need.

Still, though, better to stick to concrete observations of fact rather than the Chaos and Order and Bendable Reality business. I understand the temptation to view this as a holy conflict, but it's really just exceedingly sophisticated and long-ranging ideological subversion by a certain group of parasites and their traitorous lackeys.

The "Dark Luciferian" (Satanist) has knowledge of the power of manipulation, but is trapped by ego. The Satanist tends to be Nihilistic and Individualistic because at root he believes the material world is the final endpoint for himself.

The "True Luciferian" sees the full light (is not Dark) and his world looks much like Nicola Tesla viewed things a continuous spectrum of energy vibration with no clear boundries between objects.

The countries, towns, cities, realms and provinces which will have abandoned their old customs to gain liberty, but which will in fact have enthralled themselves even more, will secretly have wearied of their liberty. Faith lost in their perfect religion, they will begin to strike to the left, only to return to the right. Holiness, for a long time overcome, will be replaced in accordance with the earliest writings.

The earlest writings are what we call "True Luciferian" today which is in contrast to the "Dark Luciferian" of todays global oligarchs.

Are you actually sympathizing with muslims? The guys who have child brides and believe honor killings is a good thing, and who have been doing fucked up shit way before america has ever gotten involved?

It's important to understand why they did 9/11, I agree. They attacked the wtc (symbol of America's wealth) the Pentagon (America's security) and the white house (America's political symbol) and they did this to say fuck outta our country, and ironically we were fed the opposite message (we need more troops in those countries). And yes the Cia has been fucking those counties up for a long time now. But there's more to it than that. They've been doing fucked up shit for long before that. Not too mention Muslims are spread out all over the globe and have been for a long time. They're taught that infidel should be killed, and we are infidel to them. They're taught porn and beer are the highest of sins and that's how they see us. As dirty sinners

I don't think we should be involved in other counties regimes but I still don't give a fuck about any pedophile raping honor killing barbarians

Cia has been doing a lot of shit, as well as in south america. Mexico did it's best and some what succeded in destroying the drug cartels. You can bet as to who let Chapo out and how he basically got out easily. There is a reason why nsa was spying on brazil so much, they were afraid of the deals they were making with the russians for meat. That doesn't do the globalists any good, since they have control over south america, the drugs. They don't want south american countries dealing with russia, the next thing you know russia has nukes and army stations in south America.

Muslims did nothing wrong ever since the beginning of time up until America got involved and it's all America's fault Muslims are pedophiles who kill infidel and consider a women to have the worth of half a man

Its not "just a mess". ISIS owns an expanse of land bigger than Great Britian, and is recruiting new members at an all time high. If you don't thik they are a credible threat, read the Atlantic's article "what ISIS really wants". Everyone should be taking them seriously.

Hes just saying that Western nations completely fucked over many of the middle eastern nations, which is causing a great number of people, mainly muslims, to radicalize. I can completely understand why they hate us, being a member of the US though my concern is how we could either annihilate or mitigate the threat they are creating to our safety.

Members of the British parliment were involved with child sex rings as well. It's all actively suppressed and censored. European people need to wake up and acknowledge the problem before anything can be done.

There were 4 more scandals, I believe, not including the aforementioned 10 listed above.

1) Involving the BBC

2) Involving the Royal Family / Seville

3) Involving the Police Forces

4) Involving the Parliament

It's funny how they want to ban Trump while another petition about stopping the immigration has been ignored in the media.

People will brush the real reason aside - they're already victim-blaming in Germany, telling people to "keep an arm's length away".

Trudeau fucked Canada, plain and simple in both altering his immigration policy and in even having it in the first place (and limited security checks).

There are police roaming the Toronto transit now, more police than usual. I wonder why - otherwise why do the "Fare Collectors" have guns?. Sure, Canada hasn't had the misfortune of terrorist attacks being successful, but plenty have tried, and CSIS (Canadian CIA) won't be able to stop every incident - although they've done a wonderful job so far.

ISIS threatened New York on New Years - things aren't looking good.

It might be politically incorrect to state the real reason for such attacks - but it doesn't mean it's any less valid.

im a fan of just starting total world chaos and seeing what it boils down to. probably nuclear fallout, possibly just a total collapse of society. all those diseases stored deep underground in scientific bunkers would maybe erupt to the surface under the guise of a terrorist attack. with the us government secretly pulling the strings, ensuring the citizens that they are safe from the terrorists if they give up their rights and stay in mass fema camps to survive! then we're all really fucked, and its like that scene from terminator where we're enslaved and have to escape. looking forward to it.

In First Amendment rights, while it is wrong to defame any faith group collectively (like, say, “Muslim men hate women”), it is impossible to demonize an idea ( “Sharia law is misogynistic”). People tend to confuse the distinction, which leads to improper arguments, and illogical conclusions.

I'm confused by this last statement. Under the 1st Amendment, you're allowed to say pretty much anything that isn't going to directly and immediately incite a crime.

I can say both “Muslim men hate women” and “Sharia law is misogynistic”. Whether those statements are "wrong" is up for debate, but neither are illegal.

Didn't know about these "Gangs" and just read some of your links and they made me mad.

What should make you madder is that these incidents were covered up by the media, the police, and the government for fear of backlash. Like what other rational response would there be?! Over 1,500 non-Muslim girls are systematically raped, in simultaneously separate events for years, by a consistent type of perpetrator...of course people are going to be mad! It's not like we're going to be recreating the Rape of Berlin (wherein the Russians collectively raped German women as retaliation for Germany's betrayal of Russia in WW2)!

I wonder what TRP's opinion is in respect to preemptive violent measures against minorities, before they become majorities?

It wouldn't even be preemptive. Why? Because already they're a minority in Germany and shit like this is occurring. The same happened in Sweden, where Arabs burned down synagogues and Jews were banned from a Holocaust memorial event for fear of upsetting Muslims...

Your best bet is to vote in politicians who do not shy away from the issue, and actually understand the issues.

It's funny how people mock George Bush for stating the reason was "they hate us for our freedoms". Articles like the one OP posted show that that is exactly the case.

is this shit in the news in England??? why have I never heard of this except online I don't understand how our news outlets can obsess over one kidnapped girl but completely blow over something huge like this.

The woman who reported the Rotherham scandal was forced to attend diversity training... and threatened with being fired if she reported anything like that again.

Officially, for Rotherham, the reason for the coverup was due to a fear of backlash. I can't think of another reaction that would be more rational! I could argue that the actions portrayed were similar to ISIS and their treatment to the Yadizi sex slavery, but I feel that would be unfair to ISIS!

The problem is that we've swung too far to the left - classical liberalism and the belief in legal and opportunistic equality is considered right wing now, if only because we've moved into a political space where the norm is "give minorities and women more rights than white men" to account for real and imagined historical oppression. The force vector on politics has been pointing for the left for so long that once we actually got to the point where real equality was in reach the leftist activists just kept sliding the scale further to the left rather than declaring "actually, this is where we want to be".

It's a weird world where wanting actual equality is considered right-wing hate speech. The idea of pursuing rape and violence cases on the basis of merit alone, or allowing the diversity of an industry to be decided by the mix of people who want to work there, has somehow been swept under the rug in favour of trying to "offset" historical imbalances. Because two wrongs apparently make a right.

You begin to see that the progressive goals of global peace, equality, tolerance and infinite economical and technological progress are utopian. Reality is the cure for liberals. Human nature is inevitable, progressives think that ~2000 years of civilization can change 300k years of evolution.

Begin to see reality without rose tinted glasses and accept the world like it is, I can point you towards some books about this issues if you'd like. Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye is a favorite of mine about the future of our civilization.

Archeofuturism by Guillaume Faye, if you a have a deeply ingrained lefty/liberal mentality you can skip some of the "Far right" stuff, there are some nuggets in there. The last part of the book is a fictional short-story, which paints a picture of the post-post-apocalytic world where the Archeofuturistic ideals were implemented in full. An utopian short story I guess.

Fighting for the Essence by Pierre Krebs

These two books are pretty Eurocentric but I'm sure most americans can relate to the themes being discussed. (it endorses nationalism, or delineation of nations by self-ruling ethnic groups; it supports a caste or class hierarchy; it endorses social Darwinism, or giving more wealth to those who are more competent; finally, it denies social equality, that "freedom" is a definable goal, or that we can all get along.)

Human nature is inevitable, progressives think that ~2000 years of civilization can change 300k years of evolution.

true, but lets change that to 60 years of "progress" can change human nature

but great, let them get raped. let the society fall apart. Who really gives a fuck? It's inevitable and a society, be it a small village 2000 years ago or now the entire western society must face these realities which destroy their world view so that things can be destroyed and rebuilt in accordance with reality.

i dont bother worrying about trying to change shit now, just focus on myself and what i'm doing and let the pieces fall where they may

If you believe in socialism, you're still trapped in a beta-male / female mindset. If you think that you deserve somebody else's money to be redistributed, you're a freeloader - the opposite of an independent actor with his own agency. On the other side of the coin, if you feel that your money (which you traded for a set period of your finite life that you'll never get back) is desreved by those who haven't earned it, then you're a slave to imposed guilt.

Red Pill men, Alphas, and MGTOW are - by the way they self-define - fundamentally right wing / libertarian. Nature is right wing. If you're still hanging on to the fantasy that socialism or wealth redistrubution or multiculturalism can work in the long run, there's another Red Pill you need to take, because you're living in an illusion.

You see this often, and you've conflated several topics. In my view you are the one living in a rigid ideological political illusion that cucks you unless you are already in the top 1%.

There are many kinds of alphas, and the idea that union leaders from the past were not alphas is ridiculous. Red Pill and MGTOW are individualistic yes, and individualism is given much lip service on the right. In my study of economics, wealth redistribution is critical to preventing feudal societies. The state of nature is a two class system with haves and have nots, determined by birth. A red pill man born into the lower classes can accept that it is in his rational best interest to collude with his cohorts in a union. The real failure of our society is the failure of unions. It is good to have aspirations of owning a factory, but if you find yourself standing outside the gates being forced to fight for scraps, then accepting the narrative from the factory owner that you shouldn't want to unionize because if you too have a factory in the future you wouldn't want your workers in a union, that makes you a BP cuck in my book for buying into his illusion that helps him today for the promise of your future gains at your current expense.

The United States would have turned communist if it were not for the trade unionists that mitigated the problems of the robber baron capitalism.

There is a class war going on, and not everyone is going to be a hedge fund manager. Left unchecked the elites buy the system and lock everyone out. The true alphas of this world have zero problems with wealth redistribution, and understand that government is a tool to do so. They absolutely believe in wealth redistribution, from the poor and middle classes to the rich. They spend enormous amounts of money spreading libertarian agendas that provide them the intellectual cover to do so. What they are doing is red pill yes, but if I buy into then they've cucked me.

The men who fought for unions are just as much a part of nature. Labor and capital are in constant conflict, and while sure we all want capital and to find ways to build it, on the economic level there is no contradiction between being red pill and being a populist if you are lower or middle class. Donald Trump, for all his many faults, understands this and has made great leaps because he has given lip service to such populism violating core conservative ideologies.

You've conflated quite a few things, wealth redistribution is not the same thing as socialism nor is it multiculturalism. The system we have now is nature. Wealth accumulates upward, and extremes in inequality drive social unrest and revolution.

If are are a 1%er, of course you want a right wing government as a red pill man. RP ideology encourages you to try to get there. But not everyone has the abilities to get there, and if you wind up on the factory floor with little hope for advancement, organizing your brothers can be red pill too. If you fight for the class you are not in, you are being cucked. That doesn't mean you can't have those aspirations, you should do your best to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and join them rather than beat them.

Any time you let an ideology determine your reality, you are living in an illusion. No ideology, even RP, is going to be perfect in all situations.

So you believe then that we should burn down Wall Street and take our money back that was redistributed to them via government policy? Is that natures way? Or should we use the rule of law to get what was taken from us?

I see what you're saying, not sure I one hundred percent agree, but it's definitely an interesting point to consider. I'm unsure if whether or not the socialistic tendencies are truly incompatible. I'll have to think on it, thank you for your input.

Sounds like you're in a transitional phase. I was like you over a year or so ago. I slowly started consuming alternative right ideas and saw the error in my ways. It's strange to witness your own transition, it just means you're self-aware. That's a good thing. And just a warning from someone who went through the same transition as you: Your liberal "friends" are the most intolerant people you know. Coming out as a conservative to a liberal is like coming out as gay to a conservative father.

I don't consider myself a red piller, but I fully agree with you elsewhere. I've always considered myself left-wing, liberal, in favour of equal rights for all. But watching that first video, it's just fucking rage inducing the level of cognitive dissonance in the entire audience. To listen to the man speak, I'd hardly call him a rabid right wing traditionalist. He was simply stating facts. I don't recognise these people as liberal any more, they are illiberal, racist, sexist, and authoritarian in their views.

I'm also a liberal who doesn't understand the social justice cultists. But I need evidence that the OP's (and Breitbart's) assertions are true. Blaming refugees for this is premature and no evidence to my knowledge has been provided.

Essentially, the Right in the U.S./Europe have failed at all of their policy initiatives. Every single aspect of Modern Conservatism has been a disaster. The new narrative being pushed out by the Right is that of the oppressed majority. It began with issues being frames in terms of highly salient activities and themes - War on Christmas, War on whites, War on tradtional anglo-saxon/judea christain/western way of lifes, etc - these themes have morphed into what we see right now as the main concern of the frustrated Western male. Not being able to express themselves in terms of their wealth (Asians have taken that), education (Jews/Asians) etc.

A single woman was raped, and countless others were sexually assaulted. How does this make it any better? This was in a public place, thousands of people and lots of police close by. What do you think would have happend, if there was no one around? This will only get worse.

Your whole comment could be turned around, the left has failed with pretty much everything they wanted to do. They have caused so much damage to our society, the level of indoctrination is incredible. They are responsible for the downfall of our society.

I find absolutely hilarious that the city of Cologne (why can’t you call it Køln like everybody else?!) has responded to the attacks by issuing a code of conduct – for the young women and girls to follow – so that they cannot avoid being sexually assaulted in such a way another time. Now how’s that for victim blaming.

The rules in the conduct will be posted online and updated regularly. Among the rules, are that girls must maintain an arm’s length distance to strangers, not be separated but stay within their own group.

Whats even more hilarious: the female mayor of Cologne was recently attacked by a crazy neo-nazi (with a knife). Maybe she should have kept an arms length of distance? Just goes to show how stupid her statement was. Fucking left-wingers have lost grasp on reality.

There is a social contract in place. This is more strict in Germany than the USA. The citizens give up their right to arm themselves, in turn the state will ensure their protection. If the state is no longer capable or willing to protect the citizens, its first action of the day should be to relinquish its monopoly on arms.

But I was mainly struck by the extreme difference from the common feminist response to rapes in Western countries (such as the "slut walks"): that any suggestion that women might also be aware not to put themselves in dangerous situations is tantamount to victim blaming. And then we have here the major coming out and saying that girls will have to just suck it up and learn not talk to strangers.

Anyway, I mostly left Europe myself. Doubt I'll come back permantly. Many things can be said about SE Asia, but they don't put up with shit like this the places I go. There are also pockets in the USA where that still apply.

There is also a social contract in the USA. For instance you are not allowed to exact revenge for wrongs done to you. You, the citizens of the USA, have agreed to hand over the reponsibility for convicting and punishing criminals to the state. In turn the state ensures you that criminals will be caught and punished. Now if the state at some point is grossly negligent in upholding its side of the bargain, the contract break down and people are in the moral right to exact revenge themselves.

Its been 20 years since I learned this. I seem to recall something about that now. Thanks for the refresher. While I understand that there are ideological problems with telling people to change their behaviors when they should be protected by the state, I think there has to be some common sense approach to dealing with the current situation. I don't see Germany deporting the refugees/immigrants/syrians any time soon.

I was in Europe and Asia for most of 2015 and I will say this: East Asian countries can be racist and xenophobic as fuck to outsiders (including those from upstanding countries) but at least they don't have these sort of social or criminal problems to the same extent.

You'll be treated with respect, and certainly better than anyone with dark skin. And yeah, Asians love to hate each other. But it's important to disabuse anyone without the experience from discounting the xenophobia and exceptionalism.

You're always a gaijin or a waygook or a farang.

No matter how fluent you in are the language, no matter your employment, no matter that you're a fucking citizen who's lived there for 20 years. You will never be Japanese. You will never be Chinese. You will never be Korean.

On the contrary, a Chinese immigrant who's lived in America for 25 years and speaks English, owns a gas station, and has a couple kids? He's the fucking American dream.

But if you've spent any time living in Asia or read the experiences of those who have extensive experience, there's so many common stories:

"My Japanese mother-in-law still acts surprised when I reply to something she's said in Japanese even after I've been here for 25 years. She'll say 'Wow you speak so much Japanese for a foreigner!'" Even after all this time she sees a white face and automatically assumes I can't understand.

You get treated like a retard often. You'll be patronised. You'll have basic shit explained to you over and over. "Oh wow you know how to use chopsticks?"

These are just the dead simple examples, but this aspect of these closed societies goes a lot further and influences the way you're treated throughout the society. You'll never be one of them, even if you're half-foreign/half-local blood. You'll still be treated as an outsider.

All that being said, it's still a cool place to live and the girls are cute as fuck. I'm not interested in staying there long-term right now as I have much greater financial prospects in the west and I don't have the language skills (which aren't exactly optional in Asia if you want to fuck girls who aren't on the expat/foreigner cock carousel - and often times it's not the hotties who feel the need to go after foreigners). But if I North America wasn't the best place for me career wise right now, Scandinavia and a few Asian countries would be top of my list for a variety of reasons. Bracing for inevitable bullshit reaction from people who've never been to Scandinavia telling me it's a feminist shithole. I don't give a fuck, I'll take hipster liberals all day long if they literally look like Disney Princess Barbies, speak fluent English, have good economies with low unemployment, and have some of the lowest obesity rates in the west. I've lived in every continent on earth for months at a time aside from Africa and those are my current pics.

No matter how fluent you in are the language, no matter your employment, no matter that you're a fucking citizen who's lived there for 20 years. You will never be Japanese. You will never be Chinese. You will never be Korean.

On the contrary, a Chinese immigrant who's lived in America for 25 years and speaks English, owns a gas station, and has a couple kids? He's the fucking American dream.

I don’t mind being a gaijin. I am what I am. And I’ll never be anything else.

It’s the USA that is very special in this regard. Most of the world, including traditionally Europe, works in different ways. I’ll never be Japanese, or Chinese or Thai or anything else – any more than I’ll suddenly sprout wings and become a bird. It’s impossible. In most of the world nationality/ethnicity is not something you acquire by becoming a citizen, it’s a central part of your being which you at a minimum must be born into – if not have several generations behind you and probably the same race and mother language, etc. My father is from the Faroe Islands, and even though he has lived in Denmark since he was a child and I was born in Copenhagen, and even though the Faroe Islands is part of Denmark, I’m still not really 100% Danish.

Practical advice? Stay at arms length. meh.. I gave the only practical advice just below: let the citizens defend themselves with arms. In fact that was exactly what a Swiss Army Chief adviced just a few days ago.

In addition, of course the police should take whatever measures required to stop attacks. Including shooting down people disobying orders. Deploying the army if necessary.

The only good part about this is watching the left wing squirm at the unintended consequences of bringing in millions of men who make Genghis Khan look like a liberal.
Not sure if they are too stupid to see it, or it's all ok as they just want to see white-male-western society brought down as hard and fast as possible.
Already the backlash is beginning in Germany and Sweden, where violent anti-muslim attacks are starting to occur.
That may also be part of the left wing plans, knowing extremists will eventually attack muslims, and then they can label anyone who criticizes indiscriminate immigration policies as a racist/extremist.
Looks to me like the plan's going to work.

And now the anti-migration politics of the European country I live in and the negative publicity all around the world gets full reward. Muslim migrants are almost complete avoiding my country and most want to go to Germany or Sweden. And obviously this will only get better because if the already have friends/relatives in Germany subsequent ones will go there too.

bringing in millions of men who make Genghis Khan look like a liberal.

Genghis Khan is responsible for killing millions of people including their cats and dogs, and raping the survivors. Let's be realistic, none of the immigrants are on the same level as him. I'm not condoning any crimes being committed, but lets not lose our heads here.

Even if it did get out to mass media and it was focused on, people still wouldn't believe it. The evidence is everywhere that the migration crisis will destroy our culture, but to say so is still 'racist' and people don't want to speak up. In addition, no one wants to believe it will happen to them, the first thing i thought was 'this wouldn't happen in countries like the UK because...' then i realised that's what i was conditioned to believe. Yes feminists don't want to hear it but neither does anyone, this doesn't fit the narrative for pretty much any group of society. This is a bigger issue than feminism.

I put it sixth on the list. The defining war of this century will again be centered in Europe, but this time a civil war, between native populations and the muslim immigrants, because wherever you look in the world Islam does not mix with other cultures without violence. Top of the list I put The Netherlands, simply because they are reaching the stage where the majority of pupils going through school in cities like Rotterdam are Muslim now, and any politician who speaks up needs 24h guard against assassination. Next in the danger list is Sweden, because they have taken proportionally the greatest number, and already have no-go areas. Also, it is a feminist paradise, so that handicaps them from taking useful action soon enough. After that Denmark. Then probably France, Germany, then the UK. It will be interesting to see what happens, but it will not be pretty, because of the numbers involved, and the fact that the 'enemy' is so spread out.

The tragedy, of course, is that most of these muslim immigrants don't want anything to do with this, and will get caught up, just like the native population. I imagine that will go two ways. A good number will 'defect' and just leave islam. Another group will set about an Islamic Reformation, as Christianity went through some centuries ago. What happens to the rest? That is the big question.

The curse is, 'may you live in interesting times', and indeed we are. But the Left, and feminism, is severely weakening the West, which is why this can happen. If our culture (and western men) was as strong as it was in the 19th century, it wouldn't be a problem. When these guys look at Western women and decide they are just sluts, can we really argue?

There is no way Trump is gonna be let to be elected. In America, out of any country? That would be extremely masochistic from the puppet masters that made a point in making America the stronghold of progressivism.

If Trumps manages to be a serious candidate, some enormous scandal will come out about him, until his reputation will be completely destroyed.

If by any chance he still managed to survive the media nuking, he would be assassinated, JFK style. Or poisoned, or whatever.

You know people keep saying this, but I think it would be interesting to have him as a president. Not that I support him by any means, but I feel like he would fuck the whole political system up so bad that it HAD to be fixed. After that its anyone's game.

When this war comes (and it can't come fast enough in my opinion) I'm leaving my job and going across the Atlantic to fight. If these raping, shit-blooded scum can run off to fight for the Islamic State and come back with no consequence, I'm gonna do the same, but for the good guys instead.

Look around, wherever there is a large population of muslims in close proximity to another culture there is conflict. Look at Nigeria, look at Sudan, look at Lebanon, or Philippines. There comes a point when even SJWs can't stick their heads in the sand anymore, and even if they could, the general population could not. They will only stand so many Colognes, Parises and Rotherhams.

Lets take the whole "refugee" thing for what it is to a lot of these Muslim guys who are coming to Europe. The idea of a safe zone in the Middle East or going to other Gulf States does not appeal to them, why? Not any blonde women in those Gulf States. I have to say that from my experience, Middle Eastern men are so thirsty for blonde women that they will go well beyond their means to get with one., hands down the most desperate for blondes.

Of course these men don't want to go to the Gulf States, they want to go to Sweden where they can grope blondes all day. A lot of them want to come to America because they desperately want that blonde they longed for. The irony here is that they're actually acting in ways that make it that much more difficult for any kind of brown guy to get those same blondes because they ruin the status of most men of their race. Arab and Middle Eastern guys have among the worst game in the world in general.

That would be an apt prediction except you have removed the biggest and most dangerous player: money, and by extension, corporations. Many of the European governments are not as whipped as the American govt by corporations, but at the first sign of instability anyone who wants to remove laws and turn a profit will immediately give large amounts of money to govts, thereby helping them win the 'war', while also securing their economic future with bought-out politicians. A European civil war would not be an end-all fight that decides the outcome of civilization there, it will merely be a small issue that led to the overturning of governments and the final securing of control by corporations.

Corporations are not all powerful. When people fear for their survival, governments and corporations lose the final say. However, I think that once this gets sufficiently out of hand with the number of terror attacks by 'home-grown' terrorists, along with things like Rotherham and Cologne, the need for society to continue functioning to produce profits will be the final motivator for governments.

Corporations are a damn sight more powerful than a government that is being split between three groups, the rationals, the far left, and the kowtowing right. An organization like a corporation which is functioning as a fully-realized oligarch system will easily move in and crush a destabilized government and secure future profits. Corporate control has been on the rise since a blind eye was turned to them during the fifties, and the largest corps have far too much money and influence to be stopped now, especially as governments weaken between split mandates

Corporations are just as vulnerable to public opinion as governments. Look at the backpedalling by Coca-cola over Crimea recently. They do a lot to try to keep a good reputation, or they profits fall. When profits fall, management gets replaced. Companies generally do best when things are stable and prosperous, because people have money to spend and don't feel they have to stash so much away for emergencies. A Europe in flames does not benefit corporations.

A Europe in flames will not benefit Coca-Cola, but what about someone in the same field as General Dynamics? It'd be a cashgrab. Not all corporations work in the same area, they just have the same goal. In India many farmers are losing their water as Coca-Cola uses the underground aquifers for their supplies, and this has not been stopped nor will it be stopped, as CC has their fingers so far up the local government's ass that their facilities are guarded by the local police.

More like tolerance of intolerant and violent cultures/religions doesn't work. Multiculturalism in the US, particularly here in Califirnia, works well for the most part between different ethnicities and cultural groups. You don't see Catholics hell bent on killing Buddhists or Chinese mass raping Mexicans. Islam is the problem here and it's ironic that Feminists are defending it.

The melting pot worked. It allowed the best ideas, traditions to thrive while the worst died. Deliberately forcing multicultural values does not. At best, it creates cultural mediocrity, where everyone surrenders anything good so as to not offend anyone else (and if you are white, expect to surrender ten times as much). At worse, it creates hostile defacto segregation.

Trust me, the SF Bay area isn't all as happy together as the media might want you to think it is.

Hah no shit. Go walk around certain parts of Oakland as a white dude and you'll find anything but happy togetherness. Most of SF's beef is between the rich/poor, but there's a fair amount of racial/cultural tension as well (and not just black vs white).

whites in San Francisco absolutely despise Asian and Indian males that are doing well for themselves financially

That's just not true. In fact, there are the only groups that make any attempt to adjust for traditional American culture any more. I regularly invite first gen immigrants over for traditional holidays, like Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, and they enthusiastically participate. It's awesome and in return I am frequently invited to their religious or social holiday events. This is how it is supposed to be.

I have found that white women from San Fran and Northern Cal

ProTip: As a group, they are hostile to all men. The competition is ruthless here. You better be top 10% if you want constant female attention without flashing your betabux everywhere. That said, Indian men as a demographic have pretty high incomes compared to pretty much all other groups. So yeah, it may suck to think you have to be a BB, but there are a sea of white trevs right there in the same boat with you.

The melting pot worked because it was a melting of closely related ethnic Europeans: Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, Frenchmen, Italians, and a few Spaniards. They would arrive on American soil and happily intermarry, producing a mixed (melted) gene pool and a mixed culture. That was pre-1965. Then the 1965 Immigration Act happened. Since then there hasn't been much melting for the simple reason that most immigration is non-European.

The melting pot was also distinctly not multicultural. People were expected to integrate into society and the predominant culture. Nobody were given brownie points or financial support to hold on to antiquated cultural traditions from back home. The new paradigm is that all cultures are equally good (except Western cultures, which are all bad), and the immigrants should not be expected to integrated and assimilate. Assimilate is what drove the melting pot, but it’s a dirty words these days.

True, but as with anything else it comes down to biology. Whites don't want to have non-white children. In most cases, non-whites don't want to have half-breed children either. Nobody's to blame, except the anti-whites responsible for subverting government policy.

I fully agree that the 1960s represented the death of the melting pot. People stopped coming here to integrate, but rather to feed. However, in CA in the 70s, before the real damage had taken hold, a lot of not European cultures integrated just fine. Unfortunately, this caused what I call the Delusion of California--that people can just come together act however they acted their own and everything will turn out ok.

Doesn't work in society. Doesn't work in marriage. Doesn't work anywhere.

You seem to have missed the central point. If a foreigner fails to intermarry with the native population of his host country, his descendants will never truly be assimilated. They become Hyphen-Americans: African-American, Indian-American, Asian-American, Moslem-American, Mexican-American, and on, and on, and on. They don't see themselves as truly American, and neither do Americans.

Wrong. Diversity in big numbers doesnt work. People assimilate when in small numbers. People are integrated, when they want to be part of a culture. The moment there are enough people, who cling to their own culture and refuse to assimilate, thats when xenophobia kicks in.

I think that's something that isn't talked about the way it should be. There is just a fundamental problem with Islam, as written, and multiculturalism. Sam Harris has had a couple great points, and he basically made Ben Afleck look like a fucking idiot on Bill Maher. I'd link but I'm on mobile.

The Left Refuses to have a real conversation because they'll immediately paint the other side as racist. The right hasn't done themselves any favors because they either come off as racist, or in fact are.

More like tolerance of intolerant and violent cultures/religions doesn't work. Multiculturalism in the US, particularly here in Califirnia, works well for the most part between different ethnicities and cultural groups.

really? the government now spends millions providing information in Spanish because there's so many illegal immigrants and often their kids have a difficult time learning english.

Now to be a teacher in California it is MANDATORY to take ESL courses and get certificates, otherwise you cant become a teacher.

but yes, even Malala, the famous muslim teen, says shit like 'if people wouldnt say shit about islam, there wouldnt be attacks' and yet no one has a problem when she says that!

think of the ramifications of what she said. I mean she justifies muslims attacking people who are critical of Islam, and women are praising her for being brave. it makes me sick

"Multiculturalism" is bullshit. And I'm a brown guy like you and an immigrant to the US. You know why people think it works? Because there's a correlation between the multiculturalism that existed in early America and its future prosperity. But correlation does not equal causation.

The CAUSATION for America's success is that all those immigrants from the corners of the world showed up here with mostly nothing. And there was a fire in their soul to move the needle forward for themselves and their families. This presents a natural selection bias in that the people who immigrated here in the "show me your poor" days came to HUSTLE and WORK.

You transplant a bunch of people who are escaping war into similar opportunistic circumstances and this is what you get - regression to the mean.

This coverup may be economically influenced as well. Considering that Germany is an industrial economy and their low birth rate and impressive education system means they need unskilled labor for their many factories. So they import it and they don't want public sentiment to turn against immigration, hence more reason for the coverup.

Close, but not quite. They already have access to unskilled labor from Eastern Europe, and automation is making unskilled labor obsolete anyway. Their problem is that they are facing a population decline, which is a big no-no for a socialist welfare state. Welfare states are like Ponzi schemes.

The problem is that these people aren't Mexicans. They aren't just looking to put their noses to the grindstone and work. They are very politically active and share a religion that commands them to consume societies. Basically, liberals are dicing with death and don't even realize it.

It's pretty funny, because I was arguing about illegal migration, Trump and how what he says is that illegals make it much more difficult for legals, etc., then they ask me my thoughts about Europe, and they can't get it through their skulls that most of them are men, most of them aren't Syrians, most of them will stay on welfare, most of them don't give a shit about law and will ask for Sharia. God damn, the "progressives" are really scary sometimes.

Exactly. As much as people hate Mexican immigrants in the US coming to 'take muh jobs', they come here, work as hard as they can and with pride. And most mexicans are christian and share the same fundamental ideas that Americans do, after all the Mexican constitution was literally modeled after the American one.
These muslim immigrants literally want to establish a worldwide caliphate with their Sharia Law

What's happening with the Mexicans has happened with every other immigrant group that's come to the US. Benjamin Franklin used to make similar complaints about the German immigrants. BUT, and this is a huge but, this is a natural part of the immigration cycle. We're in the last stage before it shuts off for an extended period of time. Socialists are desperate for this not to happen.

Nope, it's the only real reason, this was the reason behind feminism too, it was funded by the 1% because it created a larger labour force, it was a major success because it stopped economic growth in the lower classes by devaluing their labour, now for the lower classes which is the far majority of people, although they have to have a man and a woman working to make ends meet, they are no richer than before, so the only gain of the feminist action of getting women into jobs has forced women to have to work for no actual added income into the household.

100% correct. The Germans are dying to be know for something other than the Holocaust. They hate that the first thing the world thinks about when it comes to them is Hitler. It's why they loved Inglorious Basterds. A story about a different outcome to Hitler where he's killed in Germany and burned before the whole starving and killing millions goes through? Yeah, Germans will be all for that. I don't blame them, but this was just stupid in every sense of the word. 1,000,000 middle eastern migrants all at once? Good fucking grief, that's a train wreck waiting to happen.

Well, Shengen is all but dead now because certain countries have violated the spirit and benefit of that agreement. Countries East of the Carpathian mountains will be shoring up against this bullshit and they aren't quaking in their boots at the Russian threat like the bitch ass Baltic states are and so they are less controllable.

The problem with the government not stepping in is that fringe groups may start to deal with the issue themselves. I can only imagine the shitstorm if an arab gets lynched in the next few years due to no one wanting to control the situation better.

What Cover up? OP mentioned some subreddits, that is bad enough. But every German news site I look at, it is the top headline. Even the left-leaning, super correct ones. The Chancellor (female) is condemning it, the Mayor of Cologne (female) is condemning it, several cabinet members (leftist males and females) are taking a hard stance. "We can't have no-go areas", "must be punished to the full extent of the law", etc. And they all mention that the mob "looked North African".

At least in German mass media, they are as clear as politians get (for once).

The press conference of Cologne police was Monday. The story was a minor article on most sites on Monday and blew up Tuesday, same time as the NYT. Why no one picked up on this before the press conference, idk.

We've been told multiple lies about who these people are namely the fact most are refugees, but what's emerging is it happens to be the countries with the aging populations (Sweden, Germany, France) taking most of them in, refugees are now out of the question. The governments in these countries want to bolster their working class as you say and anything against this process is against their policy. It's of their personal interest to keep deceiving the people so they can get more tax revenue and reap the rewards when pay day comes. It's genius.

The more automation we get, the less will we rely on low paid, low skilled labor - and I for once fear what will happen when X millions of imported people get told that their purpose of actually being there has been extinguished.

Interesting. The leading feminist publisher in Germany is doing the opposite thing. But the people are calling the main editor Alice Schwarzer a nazi now, it's a bit hilarious.

On the other side we have leading politicians like Claudia Roth saying that it's not a migrant problem and we shouldn't overgeneralize here. Then she goes on saying that it's actually a problem with all men :D

Thank god you understand that force is the ONLY method that will work with these people. This is why they have been ruled by force/dictatorship for millennia. The Western liberal/progressive mindset is so goddamn arrogant they project their way of thinking onto others and expect them to adopt their mentality no questions asked. Because THEY understand concepts of freedom/liberty/individual rights they think that EVERYONE else does too which, as anyone who isn't mentally retarded knows, is total bullshit. This is a for real clash of cultures - WE CANNOT COEXIST.

What's interesting is that the mayor of Cologne Henriette Reker tells women to follow this new code of conduct like covering themselves up and avoiding men in public – considering her backstory. Before she was elected mayor she was responsible for handling the refugees affairs in Cologne. During her election campaign a man made an attempt on her life and stabbed her, but ultimately failed to kill her (obviously) and was then arrested. Afterwards he said he did it because of her refugee politics, that he wanted to do Germany and the police a favour and that he didn't want to live in a Muslim society 20 years into the future. As far as I know nobody in the media has pointed out this irony… yet.

So funny how feminists and liberals have such a boner for the people on Earth who are literally the most incompatible with their ideal society. It makes absolutely no sense but no one ever accused SJWs of being rational.

We germans are not even allowed to defend ourselves. We are not allowed to carry certain knives, we are not allowed to use pepper-spray (they sell it as protection against animals.. otherwise it would be forbidden altogether). If you shoot or hurt an intruder, you will probably be punished unless you can prove that you were under serious threat (as in: the intruder wanted to kill me).

Fucking incredible! There is simply no way a woman could defend herself against a single person.

I wish we were allowed to own guns like you americans. I'd feel alot safer.

Except is has historical precedent. Calling something a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean you're right and you win the conversation. Much like correlation does not equal causation is not an argument in its own. All it is doing is demonstrating doubt. Which is fine, but stop pretending youre morally better because it's similar to a fallacy.

This is a serious question. What in your opinion, would work for more gun control. I have been asking myself this for a while. The often touted gun show loophole is more of a state by state thing and I am fine with making that federal. Any more control of gun sales and you would end up with some sort of gun census that I am not sure you would ever get passed. And as for regulating types of weapons, making full auto weapons difficult or impossible to buy I am for. But beyond that every measure would just be feel good. And as we have elected officials decrying the "automatic button" on guns, that level of stupidity scares the crap out of me when it comes to making regulations. I would like to hear your response because I am running into blanks when it comes to new regulations to enact.

The often touted gun show loophole is more of a state by state thing and I am fine with making that federal.

You have to understand the history. What are now called "waiting periods" were formerly called "cooling off" periods, which is just loaded with condescension. Why? Because evidently only a crazy, insane person bent on murder could possibly want to buy a guy in the first place, in the mind of the Tout Le Monde American liberal who is too concerned with what his European film critic friends will think of him.

In New York state, you have to get a judge's approval on your CCP application and then it goes to the police and then you have another background check when you go into a gun shop. The problem isn't guns, it

And as for regulating types of weapons, making full auto weapons difficult or impossible to buy I am for.

You'll be happy to know that they're already virtually impossible to get. You will also be happy to know that only twice in American history has a legally-owned fully auto weapon been used to commit a crime, both times in Ohio, and both times by police officers (one guy really didn't want a confidential witness to testify and the other case is a bit more debatable).

But beyond that every measure would just be feel good.

None of the gun laws passed in CT after Sandy Hook would have stopped Sandy Hook. When Adam Lanza went to buy a gun he was denied under then-existing gun laws. What didn't stop him was his mother, who knew he was fucked up, decided she wanted to engage him somehow to make him less fucked up. Fine. How about stamp collecting? How about board games? Buy him a fucking puppy. But whatever the fuck you do, DON'T take him to the range and turn him into a trained killer!!!

I would like to hear your response because I am running into blanks when it comes to new regulations to enact.

Most new regs aren't going to help. There will only be calls for more regs when the new regs don't work. And why is it that rural people don't seem so eager to off each other? If you look for the murder capitals of the nation they are all big cities in the bluest of the blue states. Detroit, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, Chicago. And even if you say that "Oh, but they're bringing guns in from other states where it's easy to get them" there still have to be MFers who want to shoot each other, and evidently that's the homies National Sport. Have a look at Bill Whittle's Number One With a Bullet. It will be eye opening.

You misunderstand me. I own a few guns. In fact, my sig 226 still hasn't been fired because of my job and I am getting real itchy to go to a range with it.

I was talking about the background check for gun shows. Cooling of periods are stupid.

You will be hard pressed to ever convince me of a need for full auto on a personal weapon. Its good for close in work like room clearing and squad weapons, thats about it. I like the idea of not having them available to anyone who is unhinged enough to want to kill crowd of people.

And I was asking a person who professed the like for more gun management for their ideas because I truly cant think of any new ones that wouldn't be instantly rejected. So maybe I could ask someone who has a different viewpoint on gun laws than myself to tell me about these new ideas.

In the end your information was intresting, and I will be downloading the book. But I am on your side for the most part and I wanted to listen to an opposing viewpoint.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with what anybody "needs". It is clear that it is there to defend yourself and your family/citizens. And that includes defending from a tyrannical government, and not just someone breaking in. Any time someone mentions "need" or "hunting" in a discussion about gun ownership/2nd amendment in the United States I know I've encountered somebody who hasn't critically examined the 2nd amendment and why it was penned in the first place.

This is exactly it, it's for defense against govt if all goes to shit. The govt will be far less likely to trample on the rights of people who can shoot back as opposed to people who have no defense. You may say, but they have tanks and you have you're silly guns, that's not the point and there's a lot of things tanks can't do

Plus, sticky bombs! But seriously the military with tanks and stuff won't be really ordered to shell a town in the states. The police and swat teams and their gear is what would be first and most employed.

You will be hard pressed to ever convince me of a NEED for full auto on a personal weapon.

Define the need for any of your firearms. Full auto is an option that fills a niche and should be available. Why do you need the feature of a scope? Irons are fine. It's hard to shoot clays with anything but a shotgun. It's hard to conceal with anything but a pistol. It's hard to accurately drop a creature past 150 yards without a rifle. Full auto currently is reduced to fun or war, but I'm sure a new use for it could be discovered quickly.

Just be careful of the word NEED. All you need is food, water, shelter and fire. Everything else is a luxury that makes acquiring the above four things easier.

Don't exaggerate. The progressive think that it was western foreign policy that ruined these countries. Its a debatable premise (I happen to mostly disagree with it) but "feelz over realz" doesn't really apply here.

Exactly, it is baffling how stupid the politians have been. Places like Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Chad, etc are not shitholes because of the geography, or genetics, or the food, but because of the culture of the people living there. So, if you let them move somewhere that is peaceful and civilized, like Sweden, but say 'bring your culture with you, we are multicultural now', what the hell did they think would happen? If they instead had said, 'sure, come on in, but you have to leave your culture and religion behind and adopt our ways, become Swedish/Danish/German/whatever' then there wouldn't be a problem (and the number would be far fewer, of course).

Ha! The "common sense" you're referring to is considered to be racism in Sweden.

And there's no political conspiracy going on against the people: the politicians really are this stupid. They think that Sweden has no culture of its own (the current government did not imply this, they said it outright), so there's nothing to preserve and nothing for immigrants to adjust to. In fact, since Sweden has no culture, it is craving external cultural influences. Since Sweden is so boring, the more distant that external culture is, the better!

Of course, most of these ideas are forced on the people from above, so it works quite differently in practice. If you don't speak excellent Swedish and can follow social codes, you won't find a job. To solve that problem, the politicians cleverly make it cheaper to hire immigrants than Swedes. Since that still doesn't work (no shit!), we can expect further measures. Maybe we'll see quotas in the near future to force employers to stop discriminating against immigrants.

As expected, with every such measure the gap and the friction between native Swedes and immigrants grows.

Fear. Until the Salman Rushdie affair, I don't think any of us (including politicians) saw the clash of civilizations to come, and by that time there were already so many muslims in the west. They have been flailing around trying to solve the problem ever since. I think America, in particular, looked back at the success of rebuilding Germany and Japan after WWII and expected to achieve similar goals with Iraq and Afghanistan. Give them democracy and they will thrive. But actually, culture plays a big part, too. Some people are not ready for it yet.

Once you have many in your society, what can you do? Take any overt steps, and you piss off both feminist SJWs (and so public opinion), and also the Arab oil states. Our society is highly dependent on oil. So they try to pretend it will go away, and people will just change and become more civilized.

While I think there are some in an elite looking for short term profit, I don't think most politicians are that machiavellian, just stupid and afraid. This situation is out of their control unless they actually pull the trigger and start closing borders and repatriating, with the conflict that will engender.

Perhaps. There are two possibilities: that an elite is deliberately using feminists, and then muslims (knowing that a relatively small but significant proportion of the latter will be highly disruptive in the way that buddhists, jews, Jains, Sikhs etc will not) to keep the lower classes down; the other is that politicians are people too, and just as liable to blind themselves to what is in front of them because of their ideological bias as the next man. Maybe a mix of both.

I wouldn't be shocked if it was just to keep distracting us, but they are really making a shitty world for us, and if they keep fucking over the young male population, they're gonna lose everything.

THEY DON'T NEED TO DISTRACT US! We distract ourselves. Stop destroying the country for fuck's sake. We don't need you to bring in fucking Syrians for us to not notice wealth inequality, it's not really high on our list. But if you do this bullshit with stupid ass decisions, you may well lose everything. Why are you prodding and poking when you don't have to?

Daesh/ISIS/ISIL/al Qaeda are all inventions of the west fighting a war to topple a foreign regime (Assad's) for political purposes. The Syrian immigrants had a fully functional country before western nations started a war forcing their displacement. The burden of responsibility for what has happened lies with the west and it's citizens.

Immigration if a few thousand from any one area or group per year. And yes, it is always good to bring in new blood. Migration is whats happening right now. And that will lead to culture clash as the new invading culture attempts to supplant the old. It will become bloody.